Is the TSA going too far?

[Holdfast]

Or put more concisely - if simplistically - than I did:

If I had to choose, I'd rather be free than safe.

More accurately:

Would you rather have 1 in 5 people slightly inconvenienced or would you rather have a greater chance of being blown up?

OK, at least now you're discussing the crux of the issue. Although you've put it flippantly, that is indeed very much the question that needs to be answered. In order to do so, a person needs to know:

- the chances of being involved a terrorist incident
- how much is that risk has been reduced by pre-existing measures
- how much further is risk reduced by the new procedures
- how much harm (infringement/inconvenience/time delay/hassle/whatever we call it) is caused by the new procedures

I would strongly argue that since the risk of a terrorist incident is already astronomically low, and since the risk has been well contained by existing methods, that the further reduction of risk from the new procedures is likely to be very small. Not zero, I agree, but small. Especially on a per passenger basis.

If so, then the amount of harm required to be caused by the new procedures can be very small indeed before it outweighs the incremental reduction in risk of terrorist incident. In that setting even mere "inconvenience" may well be enough of a harm to outweigh risk of a terrorist incident.

So yes, on a personal level, I WOULD be willing to take my very marginally increased chances "of being blown up" in return for a faster and "less inconvenient" journey through security.

However, a more optimal outcome would be a proper streamlining of security, to reduce duplication, as that would both reduce the harm of delays and the risk of terrorism. The real problem with security procedures is that they are unintegrated instead of efficient.

 

[Mr Awe]

That sort of side-steps the question, since you can't not agree to be searched by the TSA.

Sure you can. Don't book a flight! It's a condition of admission that you accept by purchasing a ticket.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

The TSA is a government agency, I gave only agreed to pay for transportation from one place to another. I have not agreed that it is ok to search me or my person or my effects.

By booking the flight you have agreed that you and your belongings can be searched. It doesn't matter if the TSA is government or not, you've agreed. It's really that simple. You can say that you haven't agreed until you're blue in the face but by purchasing the ticket you have tacitly agreed to submit yourself to the security measures.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

Or put more concisely - if simplistically - than I did:

More accurately:

Would you rather have 1 in 5 people slightly inconvenienced or would you rather have a greater chance of being blown up?

OK, at least now you're discussing the crux of the issue. Although you've put it flippantly, that is indeed very much the question that needs to be answered. In order to do so, a person needs to know:

- the chances of being involved a terrorist incident
- how much is that risk has been reduced by pre-existing measures
- how much further is risk reduced by the new procedures
- how much harm (infringement/inconvenience/time delay/hassle/whatever we call it) is caused by the new procedures

I would strongly argue that since the risk of a terrorist incident is already astronomically low, and since the risk has been well contained by existing methods, that the further reduction of risk from the new procedures is likely to be very small. Not zero, I agree, but small. Especially on a per passenger basis.

Keep in mind that the risks are currently low BECAUSE of the security measures. The terrorist techniques are always evolving and so must the security measures. There hasn't been a successful attempt in over 9 years. That's not because the terrorists have given up. That's because of the security.

What? Did you think terrorists just stopped of their own accord?

I guarantee you that if security measures were relaxed, we would have planes blowing up. If they knew that the methods to detect bombs of various forms were not in place, there would then be no reason for terrorists not to bring bombs and other stuff aboard. No reason at all that they wouldn't. Honestly, would they just stop of their own free will?

And, granted, your personal chance of being blown up is probably still small, you will still be impacted indirectly via the general chaos and the fact that all flights might be cancelled (like after 9/11).

However, a more optimal outcome would be a proper streamlining of security, to reduce duplication, as that would both reduce the harm of delays and the risk of terrorism. The real problem with security procedures is that they are unintegrated instead of efficient.

I wouldn't disagree with this. More resources would undoubtedly help and I suspect their training is inadequate.

Mr Awe

 

[Chaos Descending]

That sort of side-steps the question, since you can't not agree to be searched by the TSA.

Sure you can. Don't book a flight! It's a condition of admission that you accept by purchasing a ticket.

Mr Awe

The TSA is a government agency, I gave only agreed to pay for transportation from one place to another. I have not agreed that it is ok to search me or my person or my effects.

By booking the flight you have agreed that you and your belongings can be searched. It doesn't matter if the TSA is government or not, you've agreed. It's really that simple. You can say that you haven't agreed until you're blue in the face but by purchasing the ticket you have tacitly agreed to submit yourself to the security measures.

Mr Awe

So, based on the voluntary nature of the economic transaction involved, specifically buying an airline ticket, the Fourth Amendment does not apply?

If so, would any of the following also be ok as long as you could avoid it by not buying a plane ticket?

1. All passengers must submit to a digital rectal exam.
2. All passengers are required to wear a clown nose and women's underpants for the duration of the flight.
3. All passengers must swear on the Book of Mormon that they are not terrorists.


Why not? You don't have a right to fly. You buy the ticket, you agree to the rules.

 

[SPOCKED]

Mr Awe, you've posted 3 times consecutively which means there's a penalty coming your way.

Which do you want... thalaron x-ray as administered by Holdfast or enhanced pat down as enjoyed ::ahem:: I mean given by T'Bonz?

Decide -- you have on earth minute!

 

[Holdfast]

I guarantee you that if security measures were relaxed, we would have planes blowing up.

No-one's talking about relaxing them completely though, merely finding where the sweet spot is between risk and benefit. Planes being blown up by terrorists is unavoidable; the question is how many we as a society accept. That's why the question is whether the TSA is going "too far" or not.

Because the alternative is a gradual ratcheting up of security over time, with layer upon layer of additional measures, with an end point of making air travel so inconvenient as to be unusable.

At the very least, as we both seem to agree based on another part of your post, a full overhaul of which procedures actually "add value" to security process and which are now unnecessarily redundant, is required.

I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to do. Many airlines are pushing for the same thing, recognising that their customers are getting increasingly frustrated by the process, and that impacts on their bottom line.

 

[Arrqh]

Keep in mind that the risks are currently low BECAUSE of the security measures. The terrorist techniques are always evolving and so must the security measures. There hasn't been a successful attempt in over 9 years. That's not because the terrorists have given up. That's because of the security.

What? Did you think terrorists just stopped of their own accord?

I guarantee you that if security measures were relaxed, we would have planes blowing up. If they knew that the methods to detect bombs of various forms were not in place, there would then be no reason for terrorists not to bring bombs and other stuff aboard. No reason at all that they wouldn't. Honestly, would they just stop of their own free will?

No, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with airport security and everything to do with the efforts of our intelligence agencies. Most of the TSA's measures are totally ineffectual at catching terrorists... they are nothing more then security theater. Keep in mind that 9/11 was perpetrated not with bombs but with box cutters... and things that can be used as even more dangerous weapons are constantly being reported as making it through security by ordinary passengers. That said, 9/11 could never happen again, though it has nothing to do with the TSA. There are three reasons why:

• Before 9/11, it was FAA policy that pilots cooperate with any hijackers because historically hijacking was nearly always resolved with the lives of the passengers intact. After 9/11, policy was changed so that in the event of an attempted hijacking, the pilot will now get the plane on the ground as soon as possible regardless of what the hijackers do or demand. This is possible because...
• The pilot door is locked and reinforced (though on El Al flights, the door is still significantly more secure)
• And just as importantly, passengers are a huge factor. Just as the pilots were instructed to cooperate with hijackers, the passengers did as well because that was the best way to ensure their survival. 9/11 showed that this was no longer the case, which is why both the shoe and underwear bombers were stopped by passengers

Ultimately, what you're arguing is a false dichotomy. This isn't about tightening or relaxing security. It's about security theater vs. real security. Treating every passenger as a terrorist not only tramples on our civil rights but also makes it harder to catch the real terrorists. The creation of the TSA obviously had the best of intentions... but its current methods are actually hurting us a lot more then they are helping.

Bruce Schneier is a security expert who has written spoken quite a bit on this issue over the past decade. There's a recent post he made on the NYT here, but it's the same sort of thing all sorts of security experts have been saying for years. The real security comes before we even get to the airport, and no amount of virtual strip searches and water bottle confiscations are going to make us any safer.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

My girlfriend was selected for a scan but I was not.

Some anecdotal evidence from frequent fliers that this is not an accident:

70% of people selected at ORD for scanning are female

"Heads up, got a cutie for you"

We haven't had a successful terrorist attempt on a commerical airliner for over 9 years. And, that's not because the terrorists have given up.

Mostly it's been because the terrorists have been stupid or unlucky. The shoe bomber - couldn't get his matches to light. But it still led to the "war on shoes"

The underwear bomber burned his genitals but was used as a justification for additional screening.

The alleged binary bomb that was going to be mixed up in the airplane lavatory is so full of bad science and bunk, the best that could have happened is that they burned themselves and filled the cabin with smoke. But that led to the "war on liquids".

Any one who thinks the security measures haven't made a difference are just being niave.

Mr Awe

And people who think the current version of security theatre keep planes and passengers safe is just as naive.

CNN's Sanjay Gupta questions the effectiveness of the scanners

WTF, TSA! from Adam Savage.

From http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trav...ng-security-theater-anything-safe-folks.html:

Remind them that the GAO thinks the machines wouldn't necessarily have caught the Underwear Bomber, who's always brought up as the reason for the machines in the first place.

Show them the youtube video of MythBuster Adam Savage explaining how the TSA missed his two 12-inch razor blades while they were x-raying his genitals.

Ask them how they feel knowing that plenty of people sitting on their aircraft did not go through the irradiation or grope. If the metal detector-based system isn't safe, why are we letting people on planes who didn't go through the new system?

Explain to them that while they're sitting in the passenger compartment, there's probably unscreened cargo underneath their feet in the baggage compartment.

Spend some time on the concept of trying to put a bank vault on the front door while there's an unlocked screen door in the back. Airports are like a small city. There are 18-wheelers pulling in all the time with fuel, food, spare parts, etc. Do they think those trucks are getting the same level of attention that passengers are? Of course not. Think about the impossibility of trying to search every truck to the level they're screening the passengers. How hard would it be to smuggle something dangerous into the airport inside a pallet of breakfast muffins, coffee beans, or beer kegs?

Finally, one that even your slowest friend or relative should be able to understand: the liquids. Why are several small bottles of liquid safer than one large bottle that contains the same amount of liquid? Even more importantly, did they know that anyone can take significant amount of liquid through the checkpoint under a medical exemption? Large bottles of saline solution, eye drops, petroleum jelly are all fine. More precisely, a large bottle labeled "saline solution" is just fine. The odds of anyone testing this large bottle to see if it actually contains saline solution are tiny. Go to the TSA's own website and look at "Travelers With Disabilities and Medical Conditions".

The TSA is very good at dealing with the last threat, or at least appearing to do so.

 

[Nowhere Man]

When I install iTunes on my computer there is a little box with all kinds of legaleaze that I dont read and at the end it says do you agree? I submit yes and go on with my purchase. While I'm not a lawyer and don't know the specifics, I know that what I just agreed to is to not duplicate or copy right infringe on apple. I'm not supposed to resale or anything like that. I'm sure somewhere I probably sold my soul to the devil, but at least I get my music and at least I agreed. When I buy a plane ticket I don't get that. I just show up to the airport and I have to take off my shoes, take all of my shut out if my wallet, get wanded all around and walk through the metal detector(twice likely) and now submit to a pat down or an X-ray if my body. Now I'm not worried about anyone seeing my naked fat ass, but Im sure my wife and sister and aunt and niece are worried about it. I realize we don't live in a perfect world, so I let the TSA wand me and I walk through the metal detector and I let them look through my bag, but I let them, we let them. It's not a matter of us getting to be searched, we allow them to do this. Enough already. It's been 9 years, time to relax the searches. I realize the terrorists are still out there, but I think when you get a memo entitled" Bin-Laden determined to strike in the U.S." and you ignore that, then maybe it has more to do with shitty decisions rather than airport security. The Japaneese attacked us, should we continue to search every Japaneese person. It's too much and it will only get worse until people protest enough for it to stop. As devided and lethargic as the country is at this time, its not going to happen.

 

[Trekker4747]

I guarantee you that if security measures were relaxed, we would have planes blowing up. If they knew that the methods to detect bombs of various forms were not in place, there would then be no reason for terrorists not to bring bombs and other stuff aboard. No reason at all that they wouldn't. Honestly, would they just stop of their own free will?

Because we had so many planes blowing up before all of this TSA bullshit.

Wait.

We didn't have any planes blowing up, did we?!

 

[clint g]

I guarantee you that if security measures were relaxed, we would have planes blowing up. If they knew that the methods to detect bombs of various forms were not in place, there would then be no reason for terrorists not to bring bombs and other stuff aboard. No reason at all that they wouldn't. Honestly, would they just stop of their own free will?

Because we had so many planes blowing up before all of this TSA bullshit.

Wait.

We didn't have any planes blowing up, did we?!

Well, we sort of did. Hijackings did occur plus there were a few plane bombings pre-9/11. Whether the current security will stop it I don't know. I do know that there will be the mother of all shit storms if standards are relaxed and there is a successful terrorist attack. I really do pity the TSA guys. They're caught between a rock and a hard place and this isn't an easy issue to resolve.

 

[Holdfast]

Only tangentially related to this thread, but the discussion got me interested in what the "maximum frequency of 9/11 type events we should tolerate".

The reason that it's tangentially-related is that it lets us calculate the cost of 9/11, and the degree of cost by way of security inconvenience we should accept. And so, can calculate how much time delay due to security is about "right".

Remember, this is just for fun and general ball-parking, with a lot of broad assumptions, approximations and crude equivalences, because it really would take a team of statisticians working flat out for a year to properly work through the maths. It would probably be a useful exercise for them to do, though.

With that caveat, and some googling...

- the estimated total cost of 9/11 to the US economy seems to be somewhere around the $600 billion mark. Add about another $400 billion for the worldwide economic fallout. That means 9/11 cost the world about a trillion dollars of lost output.
- just for comparison, the world economy is about $70 trillion and the derivatives market is worth over $1000 trillion.
- that means 9/11 cost the world about 1.4% of global economic output, which is a lot. I couldn't find data for the total worldwide economic drop caused by the recent recession, but I suspect it's about 2-3%
- it takes a lot of accumulated inconvencience to offset that drop. But there are around 3 billion air passengers per year. Suppose each person flies twice per year, and is delayed an extra 15 minutes each way due to increased security measures since 9/11, for a total of an hour per year. That seems about right to me.
- at an average hourly gdp per capita per hour for developed countries (the vast majority of passengers) of about $3, that means the total cost to productivity of the security measures per year is about $9 billion.
- if one assumes that pre-flight security is the ONLY contributor to risk reduction of another incident on the scale of 9/11, that means they have to occur less than once per century.
- if the security measures themselves only contribute to a small percentage of that risk reduction (see the arguments outlined by others upthread about "security theatre"), then we can modify our calculation.
- suppose better intelligence, better in-flight security, etc, can contribute to 80% of any reduction, that means pre-flight security needs to contribute only 20%. That means their cost needs to offset just 20% of the total cost of 9/11
- $200 billion divided by $3, divided by 3 billion annual passengers, divided by the 4 trips per year, divided by the 100 years between incident means that each passenger should only be expected to experience an extra security delay per trip of just over 3 minutes instead of the 15 minutes I've postulated they experience now.

In other words, security is about five times more inconvenient than it should be, if the target is to reduce the frequency of 9/11 events to a cost-neutral level.

How's that for a bit of idle intellectual masturbation!?

 

[Trekker4747]

I guarantee you that if security measures were relaxed, we would have planes blowing up. If they knew that the methods to detect bombs of various forms were not in place, there would then be no reason for terrorists not to bring bombs and other stuff aboard. No reason at all that they wouldn't. Honestly, would they just stop of their own free will?

Because we had so many planes blowing up before all of this TSA bullshit.

Wait.

We didn't have any planes blowing up, did we?!

Well, we sort of did. Hijackings did occur plus there were a few plane bombings pre-9/11. Whether the current security will stop it I don't know. I do know that there will be the mother of all shit storms if standards are relaxed and there is a successful terrorist attack. I really do pity the TSA guys. They're caught between a rock and a hard place and this isn't an easy issue to resolve.

There were some minor hijackings over time, yes, and a couple major ones all of which would've been stopped by something as simple as a more trained flight staff, a more secure cockpit door, or simply just accepted as statistical losses.

As pointed out, these measures wouldn't have prevented a 9/11. If Adam Savage can get on a plane with razor blades then 9/11 could still happen again.

No, wait, it can't. Because passengers and flight-staff are more aware of this stuff, hardened, and aren't taking shit anymore.

And we shouldn't be so willing to accept the loss of our privacy, dignity, and the integrity of our cellular structure in the name of "feeling safe."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I think it's been established that the radiation issue is nil. You'd have to go through the scanners 500 times to get the same radiation content as *one chest X-ray*. Also, you get more radiation just by sitting in the cockpit during one flight.

 

[Trekker4747]

^ I think it's been established that the radiation issue is nil. You'd have to go through the scanners 500 times to get the same radiation content as *one chest X-ray*. Also, you get more radiation just by sitting in the cockpit during one flight.

I'd like to see a link on the last "fact."

Any any radiation isn't good for you. Doctors themselves are often hesitant to give x-rays because radiation is not good for you! So let's go with your first numbers of going through it 500 times to get one chest X-Ray. That's 250 round-trip flights. Buddy of mine travels two times a week for his job which means every 3 years he's getting an extra chest x-ray. And that's if the reports of this level being accurate, some reports I've seen are higher, and keep in mind that instead of this radiation being focused on your chest it's being focused on the flesh of your entire body.

That gives me pause. I'd rather not dick around with radiation.

It'd be interesting to see any hard studies being done in the next few years looking to see if these machines cause a rise in skin cancer (the most likely form of cancer I see them causing.)

As for "more radiation in the flight" I doubt that but am willing to accept being wrong if you produce a trustworthy link. The atmosphere may be thinner at 30,000 feet giving less protection from the sun's radiation but there's still protection. And the radiation isn't intensified over your entire body.

Radiation being a "real danger" or not it's still not something I want to dick around with (think: the puny amount of Mercury in a CFL lightbulb that makes you want to don a Hazmat suit only more dangerous) and it's something I shouldn't have to exposed to in order to move freely about in my own country.

The only person who should be able to "prescribe" me to be exposed to radiation is my doctor. Not the government.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Only tangentially related to this thread, but the discussion got me interested in what the "maximum frequency of 9/11 type events we should tolerate".

The reason that it's tangentially-related is that it lets us calculate the cost of 9/11, and the degree of cost by way of security inconvenience we should accept. And so, can calculate how much time delay due to security is about "right".

Remember, this is just for fun and general ball-parking, with a lot of broad assumptions, approximations and crude equivalences, because it really would take a team of statisticians working flat out for a year to properly work through the maths. It would probably be a useful exercise for them to do, though.

With that caveat, and some googling...

- the estimated total cost of 9/11 to the US economy seems to be somewhere around the $600 billion mark. Add about another $400 billion for the worldwide economic fallout. That means 9/11 cost the world about a trillion dollars of lost output.
- just for comparison, the world economy is about $70 trillion and the derivatives market is worth over $1000 trillion.
- that means 9/11 cost the world about 1.4% of global economic output, which is a lot. I couldn't find data for the total worldwide economic drop caused by the recent recession, but I suspect it's about 2-3%
- it takes a lot of accumulated inconvencience to offset that drop. But there are around 3 billion air passengers per year. Suppose each person flies twice per year, and is delayed an extra 15 minutes each way due to increased security measures since 9/11, for a total of an hour per year. That seems about right to me.
- at an average hourly gdp per capita per hour for developed countries (the vast majority of passengers) of about $3, that means the total cost to productivity of the security measures per year is about $9 billion.
- if one assumes that pre-flight security is the ONLY contributor to risk reduction of another incident on the scale of 9/11, that means they have to occur less than once per century.
- if the security measures themselves only contribute to a small percentage of that risk reduction (see the arguments outlined by others upthread about "security theatre"), then we can modify our calculation.
- suppose better intelligence, better in-flight security, etc, can contribute to 80% of any reduction, that means pre-flight security needs to contribute only 20%. That means their cost needs to offset just 20% of the total cost of 9/11
- $200 billion divided by $3, divided by 3 billion annual passengers, divided by the 4 trips per year, divided by the 100 years between incident means that each passenger should only be expected to experience an extra security delay per trip of just over 3 minutes instead of the 15 minutes I've postulated they experience now.

In other words, security is about five times more inconvenient than it should be, if the target is to reduce the frequency of 9/11 events to a cost-neutral level.

How's that for a bit of idle intellectual masturbation!?

Are you factoring in the cost of two wars and the morale of the people, the patriot act, curruption in the government(ie. Valerie Plame, Haliburton)guantanimo bay, the fire fighters' health care, the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan(if we ever leave) and all of the other consequences of a global war against terror which can never truly be won?

 

[Arrqh]

- the estimated total cost of 9/11 to the US economy seems to be somewhere around the $600 billion mark. Add about another $400 billion for the worldwide economic fallout. That means 9/11 cost the world about a trillion dollars of lost output.
- just for comparison, the world economy is about $70 trillion and the derivatives market is worth over $1000 trillion.
- that means 9/11 cost the world about 1.4% of global economic output, which is a lot. I couldn't find data for the total worldwide economic drop caused by the recent recession, but I suspect it's about 2-3%

And as an interesting aside... 9/11 cost Al Qaeda about $500k. If you just look at the US numbers that means every dollar they spent caused a million dollars of damages and that's probably a lowball.

 

[Nowhere Man]

- the estimated total cost of 9/11 to the US economy seems to be somewhere around the $600 billion mark. Add about another $400 billion for the worldwide economic fallout. That means 9/11 cost the world about a trillion dollars of lost output.
- just for comparison, the world economy is about $70 trillion and the derivatives market is worth over $1000 trillion.
- that means 9/11 cost the world about 1.4% of global economic output, which is a lot. I couldn't find data for the total worldwide economic drop caused by the recent recession, but I suspect it's about 2-3%

And as an interesting aside... 9/11 cost Al Qaeda about $500k. If you just look at the US numbers that means every dollar they spent caused a million dollars of damages and that's probably a lowball.

Fascinating

 

[Holdfast]

Are you factoring in the cost of two wars and the morale of the people, the patriot act, curruption in the government(ie. Valerie Plame, Haliburton)guantanimo bay, the fire fighters' health care, the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan(if we ever leave) and all of the other consequences of a global war against terror which can never truly be won?

No.

I thought about doing so, but deliberately decided not to, because a) they were optional acts, not automatic consequences of 9/11; b) it's difficult to calculate how successful (or not) the wars are in terms of exporting (repatriating?) terrorist acts to other countries and away from the developed world. So the net cost/benefit is extremely difficult to guess at, even using the very crude guesstimations I applied in my calculations.

For instance, it's been argued upthread that other measures separate from pre-flight security have reduced the risk of in-flight terrorism. If the wars resulted in enough Al Qaida/other terrorist resources and attention to be focused on their home ground rather than abroad, that may be a reasonable net contribution to reducing risk. It's really difficult to calculate all of this, however, so people will believe what they will choose to believe based largely on their political leanings.

- the estimated total cost of 9/11 to the US economy seems to be somewhere around the $600 billion mark. Add about another $400 billion for the worldwide economic fallout. That means 9/11 cost the world about a trillion dollars of lost output.
- just for comparison, the world economy is about $70 trillion and the derivatives market is worth over $1000 trillion.
- that means 9/11 cost the world about 1.4% of global economic output, which is a lot. I couldn't find data for the total worldwide economic drop caused by the recent recession, but I suspect it's about 2-3%

And as an interesting aside... 9/11 cost Al Qaeda about $500k. If you just look at the US numbers that means every dollar they spent caused a million dollars of damages and that's probably a lowball.

Not surprising though. Terrorism has always been very cost-efficient, which is why it's so widely used.

The two outcomes to most terrorist campaigns are either:
1) a political settlement of some sort
2) the terrorists running out of resources, and so eventually fizzling out

In that context, it doesn't really matter if terrorism is very cost-effective to AQ if they still end up running out of money in absolute terms. If their financial lifeline is restricted, they'll have to use cruder - and hopefully easier to detect - means of attack. Of course, it's very challenging to know what the best way is to contain that financial lifeline, hence all the arguments about the validity of various foreign policies.