TSA's Failure Based On The Myth Of Perfect Security
from the it's-not-happening dept
As the complaints against the TSA ratchet up, various people are finally starting to point out why the whole concept of security theater is a farce. The entire setup is based on the idea that you can have "perfect security." But, if you wanted perfect security, the only way to do that is to not let anyone fly, ever. As James Fallows notes it doesn't make much sense to "spend limitlessly toward the impossible end of reducing the risk to zero." As he notes:Every society accepts some risks as part of its overall social contract. People die when they drive cars, they die when they drink, they die from crime, they die when planes go down, they die on bikes. The only way to eliminate the risks would be to eliminate the activities -- no driving, no drinking, no weapons of any kind, no planes or bikes. While risk/reward tradeoffs vary between, say, Sweden and China, no nation accepts the total social controls that would be necessary to eliminate risk altogether.Along those lines, the Unqualified Offerings blog (via Julian Sanchez) does a nice job explaining how the incentives line up to create this ridiculous situation. Basically, he notes that a terrorist attack on an airplane will happen. Some day. No matter what we do to try to prevent it. But once that happens, the response is going to be obvious: those who pushed hard for more ridiculous security theater that wasn't implemented will keep their jobs and retain power. Those who pushed for more reasonable solutions will be vilified.
Yet when it comes to dealing with terrorism, politicians know that they will not be judged on the basis of an "acceptable level of risk." They know that they can't even use that term when discussing the issue. ("Senator Flaccid thinks it's 'acceptable' for terrorists to blow up planes. On Election Day, show him that politicians who give in to terror are 'unacceptable' to us.") And they know for certain that if -- when -- a plane blows up with Americans aboard, then cable news, their political opponents, Congressional investigators, and everyone else will hunt down any person who ever said that any security measure should be relaxed.
This is the political tragedy of "security theater."
100% success is usually impossible in the real world. Given that eventually, one way or another, a terrorist will almost certainly take down a plane, the only question that management has to ask itself is what position they want to be in when that happens. And that answer is simple: Safe in their jobs, and poised to inherit a bigger budget.And that's why we get security theater.
The goal isn't so much actual safety. After all, as Jim Harper notes, if you look at the actual "risk" of a terrorist attack on an airplane today, it's pretty close to zero. But the whole process is built around trying to bring it all the way to zero, which is an impossibility, but leads to ridiculous extremes. And, he notes, this is exactly how the terrorists planned it:
This is apostasy in Washington -- where the political imperative is zero risk. But risk is a reality of life. We take risks when we drive, when we walk across a street and when we go to the fridge for that two-day-old slice of pizza.
This illusory quest for zero risk helps terrorism achieve its goals. As news of "Operation Hemorrhage" -- smaller, low-cost attacks aimed to disrupt commerce and stoke fears -- demonstrates clearly, terrorism works by inducing target states to overreact. That's the only mode terrorists have for affecting major powers like the United States.
We've been nothing if not a patsy to their strategy. The element of surprise, central to terrorism, forces us to defend everything against every mode of attack -- a logic that naturally bleeds us.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: incentives, myths, privacy, security, terrorism, tsa
Companies: tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
No Mike, they do not work on the basis of trying to achieve perfect security, they work on the basis that NO SECURITY CAN EVER BE PERFECT.
They know they cannot find everything, and KNOW that the 'enemy' will try different things, they know there will be new developments that will get around their present systems.
No Mike, they dont work on 'perfect security' as a goal, they work on trying to keep up with, and ahead of the enemy, they do find things, and they also find things that they should of found earlier, its a dynamic thing, there is no "we now can do all this, therefore we have perfect security".
NO. Mike once again, you're entire premise is wrong.
So what are you saying, if SOME things can possibly get through the system, we might as well scrap the system alltogether, and let everything through.. Good one Mike !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, darryl as usual you are wrong from the start..
... they do find things ...
What have they ever found?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, darryl as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
No, what he is saying is that there are much more clear and present risks in our lives that we, if we were to be a bit more clinical, should focus our money, effort and fear on.
We should spend money (inconvenience and privacy violation should have value, too) in proportion to the *actual* risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
When the accident does happen, you point out that you moved money from the lower risk to the higher risk. You then bring out a chart that shows how many died in planes and in cars and explain in graphic terms that the opponent preferred to let 100,000 die for the sake of 10,000 (or whatever the math yields) -- ie, preferred to let 90,000 extra people die!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
so yeah, mike is correct, and your statement confirms it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
It promotes a false sense of security, prevents better methods, and is expensive. On a positive note, at least it keeps the bureaucracy busy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
Personally I'd be more concerned about the guy that simply bribes the guys running the security for a paltry salary to let him through while coming up with some plausible reason why to allay their suspicions that have already been supressed by the application of cash.
Or if you really must have a dramatic image for it, then how about the long-term terrorist who gets to congress (it is your congress that are pretty much exempt from security, right?), or the guy who becomes the congressman's aid and replaces his undies with explosive ones. "CONGRESSMAN BLOWS UP PLANE - LINKS TO AL QUAEDA" sounds like a good headline for terror don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
You can't stop a smart determined terrorist. And we make matters worse by our politically correct aversion to profiling. Israelis don't make this mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
You are a prime example of someone who would be compelled by the 'security theater.' No amount of security is going to stop terrorists. What if terrorists just start bombing terminals? Or other buildings? Should we put ridiculous security measures everywhere?
Benjamin Franklin said, "Those that will give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." We accept certain risks for our actions. If you are afraid that 1 in 10 planes will have a terrorist, then you shouldn't fly. But those of us who care about freedom, privacy, and too much government control will go on with our lives with the knowledge of the risks we take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
When?
Seriously this is not intended as a put down, but one of my favourite questions to people is "when was the last time this theatre actually caught anyone?" I would be genuinely interested if anyone has any examples since the 80s of a metal detector catching a terrorist at an airport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
A metal detector should never catch a terrorist (or any other criminal for that matter), simply because everyone knows what metal detectors detect (metal) and how to avoid setting it off (do not carry metal with you when going through one).
A metal detector, instead, prevents terrorists (and other criminals) from being able to easily bring guns on airplanes. Not because it catches them with a gun, but because they will not bring a gun in the first place, knowing they would get caught if they tried.
This also means that it will stop most terrorist plans which require bringing guns to a plane. And if the terrorist does not have any idea for an alternative plan, it can completely avoid a terrorist act. But no one will ever know, since they did not get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
And of course we all saw how that was a significant impediment on 9/11/2001. Yes, the inability of terrorists to take guns onto a plane completely thwarted the attacks and they were unable to...oh...wait a minute...
(Let me also point out that the metal detectors don't stop guns from being brought to a security checkpoint. Of course thanks to the TSA we know that terrorists only want to kill people when they're airborne and won't harm them when they're on the ground.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
Seriously I see your point but all it does is hinder the stupid terrorists, and given how dumb the shoe bomber and underpants bombers were and that they got through you have to wonder just how stupid they have to be.
Meanwhile the rest of us are being forced to hand over nail clippers in case we decide to hold the cabin crew�s toe nails to ransom.
So yeah - pure theatre, I live near an airport and know from experience that the only bits with any real security are those which the travelling public come into contact with, the rest not so. Ask any soldier for example exactly how many troops you need to keep a 5mile+ perimeter fence secure and I bet the answer is a lot more than the tiny amount of cops at an airport - ask him if he'd trust a single chain link fence and I bet he'd have some opinions too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
A ceramic gun would be less reliable, more fragile, and very expensive to manufacture. Also, even if one did exist, what would it shoot? Ammunition is made of metal because:
A) The shell is designed to contain an explosion and be regular in shape to an extent that it doesn't damage the workings of the gun and can be easily removed or ejected.
B) The bullet is designed to survive the propellant explosion with minimal change in topology so that it flies straight, and can be somewhat malleable on impact so as to 'expand' when it hits solids like bone inside a target.
In other words, even if someone went through the trouble and expense to create a ceramic gun and ceramic ammunition, it wouldn't be nearly as effective as a standard 9mm cop gun.
Given how little attention seems to be given to a TSO candidate's prior history, I feel it would be much easier and more effective to simply infiltrate a couple of low-level TSA posts, send someone through with a gun, somehow match the terrorist with the gun to the terrorist TSO, and overlook the weapon during one of the TSA's sensual massages. Still a long shot, but then you have an effective weapon on board an aircraft.
To any terrorists reading this: please don't try this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
Besides the integrity of a projectile in enclosed spaces is not that important, can you imagine what would happen if your eyelids got pierced by little shards of plastic?
Or
One could manufacture a six barrel gun with metal pens, that could be carried on-board by a number of people who then assemble a working gun, did the TSA banished pens?
http://whatismatt.com/girl-in-thailand-killed-with-pen-gun/
Also projectiles can be propelled by a crossbow.
80 Lbs Cobra Self-cocking Crossbow Pistol Cross Bow 15 Arrow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNiY_XwBLn4
I know what you are thinking, it is made out of metal, well the chinese used to do those out of wood.
Chinese crossbow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo13R_fSvnI
I can see those things sneaking pass customs as baggage that you disassemble in mid flight and assemble the weapon once inside, will the TSA outlaw suitcases? and pens the arrows would be pens.
Those are not the only type of weapons one can construct from things though, as prisoners can attest by being shanked a thousand times a year in prisons around the country.
Which leads me to, what is in a plane one can use to manufacture a weapon? Are there tubes? hard surfaces that can be used.
I think it is better to have security on-board than invasive checks.
How much cyanide can one cram up his ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
there is no way to keep weapons off flights
this whole thing is a farce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
There are many ways of getting edged weapons onto flights. While a hijacking weapon's primary purpose is fear, lots of possibilities exist for bringing on or creating onboard a very dangerous weapon. I was just pointing out that ceramic guns aren't a major threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
In general the threat of terrorism scares me less than the morons who frequently police it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
I wouldn't be so sure of that. There's still the question of whether the pilots have been trained sufficiently and whether they'll follow that training in practice. I can think of a number of clever and horrific approaches that might work -- enough to give reason for concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
'your' and 'you're'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
According to the article, the theater is maintained because the gov't knows that an attack is inevitable. The author is saying that the illusion of perfect security is maintained for political capital. They work knowing there will be breeches and attacks. The author is simply highlighting that the security theater is a political necessity. We watch the theater from the airport, and think, "they are doing the best that they can to keep us safe." Politicians know that if they appear to be weak on terror, they could be be voted out when the inevitable attack occurs.
I missed the part about scrapping the system because some things can get through. Where is this in the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Mike as usual you are wrong from the start..
They are saying, quite plainly, that what we have in place is not only an over-reaction (and besides which, is in violation of our Constitutional rights to not be subjected to a bodily search without probable cause), it has been proven tro be largely ineffective.
Whyy keep somethign that doesn't really work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorist try all the time but they don't get much out of Israel so they go after softer targets like the U.S. that gives them everything they want "Fear".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Incidentally when was the last time you saw any Swedish porn? That's become an American thing too, one more thing to be proud of.
To the original question in the thread and with my sarcasm filter turned off I think part of the reason it didn't happen in Israel is two fold
1. There are so many terrorist strikes on both sides in Israel it would have less impact.
2. Whilst America isn't exactly the world�s nice guy a lot more people empathize with America than Israel so again more shock value.
And that�s without even mentioning the conspiracy theories that Israel funded 9/11 ;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And well.. It sort of has a scary point and I guess only time will tell
Infowars: TSA needs false flag security incident to convince Americans to accept obscene pat-downs [and the links on every second word on that page are annoying in the extreme!]
Especially after the latest announcement by Glenn Beck talking to Luke Tait (the kid who shot the video of young boy with shirt off) is true... that the Boy has Autism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's enough people that hate us for any number of reasons (which most are that we don't believe in the same thing that they do, or that we don't live our lives they way they think we should) without the US having to make one up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Myth
Nothing.
Are you the same people who would trip over your own feet and sue a retail outlet by trumping it up just to stick it to "The Man"?
Get over it. and Move on.
However I know people like this and my Gramps is one of them who makes a business out of false claims and trumped charges. The ridiculous thing is he makes his lies sound so plausible and legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Myth
Cool. I agree. What's the big deal with keeping your personal details private. Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
Nothing.
Nothing.
So, come on, if you wish to post again, those are the new requirements. Obviously no big deal. We only do it to make sure that you are who you say you are for security purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Myth
People just want to get on a plane and get to their next destination. It's no different than getting on a bus, train, or in a taxi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Myth
That's what she said.
"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said this week that her department is considering beefing up security on trains, ships and mass transit amid a public backlash over the body scanners and "enhanced" pat-downs at airports across the country."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/25/body-scanners-headed-trains-ships-mass-transit /
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Myth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Myth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Myth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Myth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a Myth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Myth
What happened to "You could kill me but will never take my resolve or dignity"
Those measures take away the dignity of anyone except those that are exempt from it.
Do you like people running their fingers on your but crack? touching your junk?
If I did that in public to anyone I would be in jail labeled as a sex offender but now that it is the government that is somehow ok?
You may not value your rights or be to scared I'm not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Myth
What's the big deal with spitting on the graves of the people that fought and died so that you can post this garbage on the internet?
If you answer is "nothing", congratulations, you are a fascist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
We finally agree on something :) I have to admit that now I have an explanation as to why it's been so cold here in Texas, Hell has finally frozen :)
Mike, here's a suggestion though, since the nutcases that are all for this new security crap has started trolling the comments, how about we simply find a reputable source of statistics on who is actually backing these security practices. And not just the scan/pat down, but rather the entire process of the TSA...
My guess is that the loudest supporters of these security practices RARELY fly, or are exempt from the security lines. I have said this since 9-11 and I will keep saying it.
But if you do an article like this, drop your own nutcase sounding rhetoric about it being all about big business making money, and do some real research. Not just the money but the social groups that are supporting it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorists have already won.
I can see him now, sitting next to a swimming poll saying "Come on guys, pay up, the bet was I could get Americans to look up each others Assholes - and I did!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Terrorists have already won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Terrorists have already won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fire with Fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fire with Fire
It's pretty much the most dangerous and potentially unpredictable method of putting out a fire and as far as I'm aware is only used in large areas where there's a wide margin for error or where there's no other possible choice.
That and you get an expert to do it who's worked in the field most of his life rather than the kid from down the road who saw a documentary about backfires once and happens to have a big box of matches.
That and if you're going to fight terror with more terror you'd think the extra would be directed at the source of the original rather than it's target wouldn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fire with Fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better hope that North Korea doesn't sell nukes
http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago/less-than-1-percent-of-cargo-scan ned-for-bombs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The myopic focus on airplanes...
Some of the things that terrorists have demonstrated are superior intelligence, strategic insight, and ingenuity -- all qualities that are lacking in the TSA et.al. because (a) they hire people with inferior minds and (b) they enforce regimented thinking, hobbling those inferior minds further. The end result is an agency whose aggregate intellectual ability is constrained by the least among them. They are absolutely no match for any terrorist worth the label.
Which is why, when the next attack comes, it will be unexpected. It will either completely evade all this expensive and offensive security theater, or it will exploit it. (As many have pointed out, building a passenger-choked security checkpoint is equivalent to building a target.) It will likely be massive, and absent some plain old blind dumb luck, it will probably be successful. We could spend 10X, 100X as much defending against it and we would still be (nearly) guaranteed to fail.
That's the reality that a lot of lesser individuals just can't accept: they want a risk-free world and foolishly believe that if they spend enough, endure enough, give up enough, they can get it. Without realizing it, they have become the terrorists' allies and patsies: they now embody the very fear that was the goal of past attacks. They are providing terrorists with continuing ROI -- no doubt much to the satisfaction and amusement of our adversaries, who have gotten far more out of their inconsequential attacks than even they could have hoped for.
(Yes, inconsequential. Over the past decade, 270 Americans/year have died as a result of terrorists attacks, most of them on 9/11/2001. 70,000 Americans a year have died due to diseases contracted during (unrelated) hospital stays. Nearly half a million a year have died due to diseases, principally heart disease, linked directly to tobacco consumption. And so on. In the big picture, deaths due to terrorism are completely negligible.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The myopic focus on airplanes...
the cost of creating this illusion of security is gigantic
imagine how many lives we could have saved or improved if we had spent it on health care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security is not just being protected from death
Security is also being protected against being offensively touched in your private parts.
Security is also being protected against unnecessary exposure to cancer-causing radiation.
The TSA is making travelers less secure. And people are starting to notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remarkable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Balance lost
The TSA succeeded where terrorism failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
Learn the lessons of Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the Vietnam war (officiallly, US was actually there prior) is now admitted to be a faked pretext, as was known to Johnson and McNamara at the time.
Nope, The Rich and Powerful stick at nothing, and *most* of alleged terrorism in the world is started by or carried out by US/UK/Israeli intelligence agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
"How Money Works"
"Zeitgeist"
Available on YouTube or your friendly bittorrent "site."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
When people generally ask for sources, they ask for actual evidence. Not fantastical works of fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
I hear in new editions there's going to be an extra chapter on Sodom and Gomorrah: "and lo the Lord our God did throw down the buildings and money lenders palaces and they did fall at near free fall speeds, for this is normal and nothing to suspect. And God did smite the buildings of their armies and his projectiles did utterly disappear despite being of enormous size, for again this is the way stuff works when you're God".
Armed with this the religious right will finally have an explanation for events on 9/11 - divine intervention against the laws of physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
LOL
Good one!
Maybe there is a God after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
"The Tortoise and the Hare" teaches us some nice lessons about pacing ourselves, but I would never use that fable as evidence when I need to know whether or not a hare is actually faster than a tortoise.
I don't think you quite picked up on the point of Zeitgeist, did you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
Why don't you explain zeitgeist to me so I don't have to download it. You can skip the George Carlin part, I have seen that.
NSFW Language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtK_YsVInw8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A military-industrial gov't that started the Iraq war with lies,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them eat their own dogfood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them eat their own dogfood
I think the wives would put an end to this nonsense rather quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them eat their own dogfood
I think the wives would put an end to this nonsense rather quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let them eat their own dogfood
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/26/obama-says-dont-touc.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally, someone gets it....
Now, somethings are okay and add security: metal detectors without having to take your shoes off.... that actually prevents people from bringing planes or cartridges on board.
This other stuff? Not so much, it just adds a BIG inconvenience to flyers AND no real security benefit.
In fact, it just encourages suicide bombers to BOMB THE AIRPORT TERMINAL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally, someone gets it....
Wait, no... it's proof that it really is a FUCKTON of money being spent to prevent pretty much nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Solution perhaps?
Would it not be a sensible compromise to have trained police sniffer dogs to locate any explosive materials anyone was possibly carrying. They could then walk through the usual equipment that detects keys and coins before getting onto the flight???
I'm sure people would rather have a trained police dog have a quick sniff as you walked past security than having some reprobate peadophile tickle your testicles!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
For 1 and 2 see US Government and TSA handbooks
For 3 see the TSA's response to a 'pat-down' refusal.
Almost looks like the terrorists won doesn't it? Since so many americans now live in a state of...oh whats the word?...ah yes...TERROR!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"But, if you wanted perfect security, the only way to do that is to not let anyone fly, ever."
If you want perfect security you can't travel by train, or bus, bike or car. You can't go into a building or go need industrial plant of any kind. The focus on planes is ridiculous. How about chemical plants? There are so many soft targets which if attacked could do catastrophic damage. The whole thing is a charade and is aptly named security theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
Yes, they make knives, spearks, shanks, sharp blads, battons, and so on,, all out of paper.
Is paper still available on an airplane ?
And ofcourse, as has been stated, these new scanner only penertrate a few MM into your body.
So the next thing ofcourse, is the known ability to conceil bombs in body cavities.
That would not be detected with the present system, so again there is no thing as 'perfect security' there is only adequate security, or insufficient security..
And mike is proposing that if we cannot achieve 100% security, we might as well not even try at all.
The fact is they are finding people, all the time, and they are finding people trying different methods to fool the system.
SO NO, again, they are not working on perfect security, they are working on 'useful' security, or security that will do at least some good.
But im not sure what Mikes alternative is, 'do nothing' seem's like he's strongest suggestion.
___________
@Mike
Cool. I agree. What's the big deal with keeping your personal details private. Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
Nothing.
Nothing.
So, come on, if you wish to post again, those are the new requirements. Obviously no big deal. We only do it to make sure that you are who you say you are for security purposes.
MIKE MIKE MIKE ---
Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
What about Google maps if you choose to have your house blurred you do not get the right to say "Mike, you are an idiot".
I See now..
So if you say something that Mike does not agree with expect to be personally attacked by Mike, as its much easier to actually address the questions that are asked.
Yes, Mike it is easer to attack than to think, and answer correctly a fair question..
But you never answer those questions, NEVER, you just pump out more smoke and mirrors..
No wonder your reputation sucks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
That's rich coming from a total asshat like you. I'm gonna mark you as funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
I proposed no such thing.
The fact is they are finding people, all the time, and they are finding people trying different methods to fool the system.
If that is a "fact," then there should be some evidence to support that. There is not.
But you never answer those questions, NEVER, you just pump out more smoke and mirrors..
Darryl, I spend all too much time answering your questions nearly everyday, and pointing out the blatantly factually incorrect statements you make -- and yet you never seem to respond when I do. I'm perfectly happy to answer questions people ask when they ask them seriously.
No wonder your reputation sucks..
Heh. All in the eye of the beholder, and my reputation does quite well among those who matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
I proposed no such thing.
The entire setup is based on the idea that you can have "perfect security." But, if you wanted perfect security, the only way to do that is to not let anyone fly, ever.
Mike it looks like that is exactly what you proposed in that statement.
READ what you said.
I said there is an expectation of perfect security, and as that cannot be achieved your alternative is not "NOT FLY at all ever".
Which is the same as saying if you cannot have 100% security you might not have anything at all (ie not fly).. (or try at all)..
SO Mike please explain, how you can make the statement that you did not propose that at all, but it is clear you did.
IN your OWN FREAKING WORDS.
Maybe im the only person who reads what you write, including you mike !
once, thing your really good at standing by your statements :)
Heh. All in the eye of the beholder, and my reputation does quite well among those who matter.
Also not true, because your reputation does not do quite so well for me !!!..
clearly, your reputation does not stand you very well amoung those that matter in patent and copyright reform.
and certainly not in academics or economics, or social or business reputation.
But I really dont care about how well you are self agrandising. Just what you say, and what you intend with what you say, and the real underlying truth and facts that deny or support your arguments.
You're reputation is only as good as you show it to be, and you do not display qualities that I would count as a positive reputation.. Im sure you have a reputation for something, I know what that is, but its not a good rep...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I did not say that the TSA shouldn't even try. I said the only way to achieve perfect security is not to allow anyone to fly.
My point is not that the TSA shouldn't try or that people shouldn't fly. It was just pointing out the natural end result of aiming for perfect security. I think anyone can read that and understand that (excepting you, obviously).
Also not true, because your reputation does not do quite so well for me !!!..
Given your history on the site, I'm happy about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Next time you post here, you need to post your full name, address, social security number and last three pay stub details. What's the big deal?
I will post it again. so you can read it and tell us how you did not say what you said ?
The entire setup is based on the idea that you can have "perfect security." But, if you wanted perfect security, the only way to do that is to not let anyone fly, ever.
I know about reading comprehension, but it appears your writing comprehension leave alot to be desired.
For one the way you write, give you some form of escape route.
That means you write in vague enough terms that you can interpret your statement in many ways. With the main way to indicate your bias's.
The entire setup is based on the idea that you can have "perfect security." But, if you wanted perfect security, the only way to do that is to not let anyone fly, ever.
1) "The entire setup is basedon the idea that you can have 'perfect security'."
No Mike for a start that is not true, it is on adequate and effective security. (first false statement).
Perfect security can be achieved, but it is not the goal of the TSA to achieve perfection. It is no ones goals or "idea's" that their system has to be perfect.
How do you guage, measure or determine perfection ? No group, company, government body, military force work on the basis of "perfection".
The entire setup is based on the idea that you can have "perfect security." But, if you wanted perfect security, the only way to do that is to not let anyone fly, ever.
What you are also saying, is that perfection is not possible, you say "if you wanted perfect security, the ONLY WAY IS NOT TO FLY".
So how come you can state that the ONLY way to achieve what you think the TSA is trying to achieve is not to fly.
Which is another way of saying, its impossible (according to mike) to achieve perfect security.. THEREFORE to achieve the goal of perfection your only option is not to fly..
Which is say, in your special way, that they might not even bother trying because even if they do try, there is no way for them to succeed, therefore the only alternative is not not even try (ie, not fly at all, ever).
There is no natural end result of trying to acheive perfection, perfection does not have an end, (for one).
BTW: I wonder if you can point us to a source where it is stated tha the TSA is set up entirely based on the ideal of perfect security..
Or is that just something you made up ??
In fact show me ANY group that has a goal of achieving perfect ANYTHING ??
IF you cannot provide that information can I assume you just made it up ?
Therefore you make up a random statement, and base your entire rant upon that incorrect assumption..
Sleep well at night ?
I guess, you are betting that there is enough gullable people who will think you are talking from real information and from a real source.. and not just a product of your imagination.
P.S.
I just LOVE the DCMA takedown web page that advertises here on techdirt, helping to create those takedowns you hate so much.
But I note as much as you hate DCMA and their takedown system, you are very happy to take some CASH for the advertising their services.
Do you have a deal with them ? You get people to post inflamatory stuff, and DCMA takedown.com throws you are few buck if they get the job.
Then you can complain about those nasty DCMA guys here ?
Double standards, are a bitch.. but money talks right :)
(im with you mike, we know how it really is ).. gotta get that cash..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fly every week
I am not saying this never happens. Just not to me and I have not see it either. There is a big difference between the facts and the hype we use for arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I fly every week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. It is a cavity probe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
NO! It's the control for my double-thick ANAL INTRUDER and it's turned up to ELEVEN! WOOF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA bashing
Talk to any police department - pat downs to prevent harm are essential to them. Talk to anyone about customs inspections - they work.
So, we are to believe that somehow, for some "magical" reason, what works for the police and customs doesn't work for TSA?
Einstein was right, "the only things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity - and I am not sure about the universe".
To me, this is simply picking on someone because they don't fight back. Having "been there", I find that objectionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA bashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA bashing -- Seeing things for what they are
As someone in law enforcement, I can tell you that the only reason for a pat-down is to be taken into Government custody.
If the people don't understand that they are being taken into Government custody during their flight, the TSA should not sugar coat it and come clean to the flying public that they are indeed entering into Government Custody at the will of the people while flying. This will help to eliminate confusion around this public-private partnership surrounding the business of airtravel.
If the security industry continues to expand into perpetuity, it will need to continue to make a profit and not unwind this business. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to see other elements of security theater being implemented to advance the industry and make people feel safe by selling more, and similar products in other business areas.
In the near term, expect to see them put in place in schools and other places where metal detectors are currently commonplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does "Acceptable Casualties" mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, we are to believe that somehow, for some "magical" reason, what works for the police and customs doesn't work for TSA?"
Really because I don't remember they ever touching your junk unless accidental to pat down someone, nor customs.
Policemen in the U.S. are rude and violent but I didn't ever see them being so thorough unless they wanted to molest someone.
"To me, this is simply picking on someone because they don't fight back. Having "been there", I find that objectionable."
Not really the TSA is doing everything it can to talk back including lying, deception and more lying.
But I agree there are stupid comments like the ones defending these assault on the population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It that respect all this fuss over scans and pat-downs is very effective really. Everyone sees the TSA and their political masters doing something. As long as sufficient voters are convinced that they are being kept secure, then the system will remain unchanged.
After all, you don't need to fool all the people, all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you do some research, you'll find that most commercial airlines are little more than a brand and a shell company with little to no capital assets. Most aircraft are leased from companies such as GE Capital, Goldman Sachs or Warren Buffet's airplane leasing company. Mechanics and baggage handlers threatened to unionize years ago and contracting workers were slowly cycled in. Then, many airlines went through bankruptcy to restructure and prevent from paying out retirement benefits to vested employees. Indeed, the industry's constant focus on profit meant some parts of the business were neglected including security. This leads us to today where as a customer of an industry's product/service you are effectively put into the industry's outsourced arm of government custody while acquiring the said service.
The idea of outsourcing security to the Government is a relatively new concept which Americans asked for after 9-11. The thing that you need to remember is that the American people only asked for this in Airtravel, and no other industry. This needs to be on the forefront of citizens minds. Any other application of security technology should be seen as over-reaching and against the original intent of Patriot/Patriot2 and other related legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reichstag Fire decree
The premise of a well formed patriot act is simple: Terrorists hate our freedoms and by having the Government pre-emptively take away the freedoms right now, there is less left for the terrorists to take later. Overall, this remains a good thing.
For more info, check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's one way
1. no possibility of hijack
2. stewardess can go through your wallet and help you "buy" things from the inflight scam..erm i mean magazine.
3. doesn't matter where the hell the plane lands, or indeed if during the flight you get rectally probed for 4hours by a 500pound gorilla named bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let not forget...
I especially like the comment to CNN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let not forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe next people will have checkpoints and everybody in car needs to be groped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]