"it's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world."
-- Stuart Smalley
My Theory of Everything (regarding human behavior) centers on our species' poor understanding of risk assessment and management.* Which is probably why I found this NY Times op-ed, "A Waste of Time and Money," by "security technologist" Bruce Schneier, so very refreshing after all the pre-Thanksgiving junk-touching hysteria. Remember that? It seems to have evaporated over the weekend, but there are still lessons to be learned. So, let's get right to Schneier's point:
A short history of airport security: We screen for guns and bombs, so the terrorists use box cutters. We confiscate box cutters and corkscrews, so they put explosives in their sneakers. We screen footwear, so they try to use liquids. We confiscate liquids, so they put PETN bombs in their underwear. We roll out full-body scanners, even though they wouldn't have caught the Underwear Bomber, so they put a bomb in a printer cartridge. We ban printer cartridges over 16 ounces -- the level of magical thinking here is amazing -- and they're going to do something else.
This is a stupid game, and we should stop playing it.
It's not even a fair game. It's not that the terrorist picks an attack and we pick a defense, and we see who wins. It's that we pick a defense, and then the terrorists look at our defense and pick an attack designed to get around it. Our security measures only work if we happen to guess the plot correctly. If we get it wrong, we've wasted our money. This isn't security; it's security theater.
I'd forgotten I had read Schneier's book "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World" back in 2003, when I was doing a lot of reading about fear and risk during America's disgraceful (and evidently endlessly self-renewing) post-9/11 freakout. But his ideas have stayed with me.
I'm even less tolerant of airline passengers' squeamishness now that I have a pacemaker/defibrillator running my heart. I have to get the TSA putdown -- aka the dreaded "male assist" -- every time I fly. I will do anything I can to avoid flying -- not because I've ever been afraid of flying, or because I'm more concerned about the illusion of "security," or because I'm freaked that someone will feel my junk through my clothing (nobody's ever grabbed it, but it doesn't go halfway down my thigh, either -- sorry, Clarence Thomas). I don't want to fly because: 1) all the waiting in line and suffocating on board and being treated like shit by the airline and its employees is so unpleasant (I don't care what the FAA says, a flight is not "on-time" when it leaves the gate or lands on the runway... and then sits on the tarmac for minutes or hours); and 2) it's one of the biggest contributors to air pollution and global warming. (OK, that last one is a very distant second, but I see people getting all self-righteous about driving their low-emission vehicles and recycling their trash (as do I), then hypocritically jetting off for business and pleasure without a care for the consequences.)
So, I'll just say what I say to myself all the time: Look, you're going to die. (I'm most likely going to die sooner than you.) If you travel on a plane, you increase your chances of dying, even though (as we are always reminded) it's still -- statistically speaking -- the safest form of travel. But nothing anyone can do can significantly reduce your chances of dying tomorrow. If you fly, your chances of dying will increase measurably, and you should face up to that fact -- just as you dramatically increase your exposure to death or injury every time you get into a car or, for that matter, get out of bed. You know that feeling you get when the plane first lifts off the ground? That's the feeling that you're no longer in control. (But if you do see someone emitting sparks from some portion of his anatomy, by all means grab the sucker and put it out.)
Our ever-changing rituals we call airport security measures are only the very last line of defense against kooks with bombs, and mostly for show -- to acknowledge something that already happened. The chances they will make you safer from the next form of attack are about the same as your buying a single winning a lottery on the day you fly. And you're still probably more likely to just crash for some non-terrorism-related reason than you are to get blown up on purpose by a lunatic. (Does no one remember "Airport" in 1970?)
Here's what I advocate: Don't fly. Just stop. We're addicted to cheap air travel and it's wreaking havoc on the world. It's just bad. Bad, bad, bad. Nobody has to travel, unless it's an emergency and you have to go help somebody in another distant locale. Otherwise, it's probably frivolous and decadent. Most business travel is expense-account bullshit. I'm all for expanding one's horizons, but save up and take a real trip, to someplace where terrorism has been an everyday reality for decades, in the streets and on various forms of mass transportation -- you know, like Europe or Asia or the Middle East. That will give you some perspective.
I'll give the last word to Schneier:
Exactly two things have made airplane travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door, and convincing passengers they need to fight back. Everything else has been a waste of money. Add screening of checked bags and airport workers and we're done. Take all the rest of the money and spend it on investigation and intelligence.
- - - -
* As I've long said (because it's so obvious), studio executives are not in the movie business, they are in the risk management business (which is also known as the job preservation business). Today, of course, all corporations are virtually the same -- they consist of fronts for investments in other companies, no matter what goods or services they stamp with their logo -- and they all seem to be conglomerated into larger umbrella-entities that exist to launder imaginary money and avoid paying taxes. The current financial debacle was created by computer-assisted financial instruments (combined with old-fashioned Ponzi schemes) designed to create the illusion of mathematically abstract investment opportunities with high return and zero risk. And what fed it? The American Dream, of course! Home mortgages, sold under false terms to people who couldn't afford them, but didn't know it until the hidden charges started kicking in. (You mean you didn't factor in those percentages in the footnotes on pages 129 and 312?) Only markets as corrupt as those we know collectively as Wall Street (using the expertise of physicists and computer programmers who came up with the calculations) could find a way to generate fantasy wealth from bad debt! We still believe in alchemy.
(Note: If this post seems extra-cranky in tone, it's probably because I'm still sick with the head/respiratory crud -- three weeks and counting -- and I've been watching political documentaries such as "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers," "Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer" and "Inside Job" so, as Steve Guttenberg memorably said in "Diner," "My blood is boiling!" All three are enlightening, and the Ellsberg one makes WikiLeaks look like the work of childish pranksters.)
41 Comments
Well said, Jim. A point on which I agree entirely, though because I fly so rarely, it's easy for me to dismiss the "necessity" of flying.
I often wonder how much of this furor is fueled by righteous indignation. Sure, we put ourselves in more probable harm's way maybe a hundred times a day. But to die in this way, at the hands of a terrorist, now wouldn't THAT be an outrage!
Why do we go to such strenuous lengths to evade statistically minor threats while willingly, and at times deliberately, exposing ourselves to threats more likely?
Not that you're advocating the same sentiment, of course, but your argument made me think of the line from the TV pundit in "Airplane!" - "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!!"
Seriously though, given that terrorists by their very definition seek to create an atmosphere of terror, isn't all this raging paranoia/obstructive air-travel security hooplah just playing into their hands?
I agree it's all hooey. Not to mention that it could mess up the few kids who have to be "groped" after societies decades old don't let anyone touch your special place assemblies at school. Woah... we may have just legalized pedophilia...
Anyway, luckily I'm broke so by default I cannot support the airlines. Besides I always found a boat more relaxing. Sure it takes longer but time flies when you're at a buffet. Also you don't have to breathe recycled air, sit next to the person that takes up a seat and half, suffer through the screaming baby, suffer through the screaming toddler, suffer through the pilots dumb jokes about things outside the window you are never next to...
And don't get started on the airline "food".
A high-speed rail system would help alleviate a lot of the need for air travel within the country - assuming you can convince people to use it.
Trains are another favourite terrorist target, so while high-speed rail is environmentally superior to air travel, it's not going to alleviate terrorism concerns.
Does anyone expect anything to alleviate all terrorism concerns? Trains are also much better for the environment, another concern Jim raises in his column.
Cranky, indeed!
Joking aside, yours is a downright calm, even-keeled voice when put up against the genuine cranks who have an endless supply of nothing to say about everything.
The debate typically amounts to painting the TSA's new regulations as a necessary evil. The suggestion (or, rather, the observation) that the vast majority of air travel is unnecessary needs to be trumpeted from the mountaintops.
Very well said also, Gipson. I can't count how many times a day I see pedestrians jaywalking across (very) busy streets, or drivers cutting someone off while yakking on their cell phones, or accelerating when coming to a stop sign just because they don't see anyone coming (and no one could possibly be about to use the space). Pure negligence and stupidity have likely taken more lives than terrorists have (not, of course, to make light of any lives taken that way).
You have a right to be cranky. The US is collectively taken a stroll through the Looking Glass, and hasn't come back yet. It's beginning to look as if it won't, ever - at least not in its present form.
For school, my son is reading "The Empire of Illusion: The end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle", by Christopher Hedges. I saw an interview with the author and then the book popped up on his reading list, so I shamelessly forced it on him. I've read the first couple of pages myself, and I'm getting it after he's done. Give it a try. From what I know from the interview, jacket copy and first couple of pages, it'll be right up your alley.
Jim,
I feel your frustration towards airport security, the lack of true effectiveness of it, and how much of it is done for show. However, I would caution what would happen if we stopped innovating and actually dropped all of our airport security measures. There is something to be said for our security mesaures themselves to be a deterrent. Yes, terrorists may always find a way to sneak a bomb on a plane. However, that doesn't mean we should allow people to carry uzis and AK-47s on to planes.
Take a look at the prohibition of alcohol in the US. When prohibition began, it cut drinking down to 1/3 of what it was beforehand. (I'm not saying it's right to prohibit alcohol, I'm only saying that by banning a product, it decreased its usage by 2/3.) Applying that example to sirport security, we currently ban fluids greater than 8 ozs, we check people's shoes for explosives, we pat down children in case they're sneaking explosives on to planes, and the list goes on. If we dropped all security measures on airplanes, I'm fairly certain that the amount of terrorist attacks would go up.
If people REALLY wanna complain about airport security, then they should all try and fly into, or out of, Israel. Dear lord, that was a fiasco and a half. If Americans think airport security is bad now with having to get to the airport 1-2 hours beforehand, flights leaving Tel Aviv usually request people get there 4 hours ahead of time. I was flying home after being in Israel/Paletine & Jordan for 2 weeks and never did laundry once. They pulled my airport bag out, took the clothes out, and analyzed the fibers of my underwear, checking it for explosives! I felt so bad for the woman who had to sift through my dirty laundry, she deserved a medal honor for smelling my clothes for 20 minutes.
Just thinking out loud, but my prediction is that if there are more terrorist attacks in the US, we'll probably continue to adopt more of Israel's airport security guidelines. If it happens, I'll be thinking of you, Jim.
The argument from the OpEd bothers me. Here's the thing about a barn door: If there are still horses in the barn, you gotta close it. And imagine if the TSA insisted on underwear groping before there was an underwear bomber.
No, you don't. Ridiculous numbers of people die every year in car accidents; we don't shut down the automotive industry. Endless child abuse complaints have not resulted in a ban on churches, childcare, or private schools.
It's not about horses and barn doors. It's about that sometimes the cost of risk prevention is disproportionate to the benefit of eliminating the risk.
But how can the government bully people around unless we step up security? It's important that we find people to molest an humiliate!
Andy, you miss the point. Who in the world is advocating allowing Uzis on planes? There are many ways to make airline security less intrusive without inviting further attacks.
To wit: since September 10, 2001, passengers on six U.S.-related flights attempted terrorist acts. Four of these attempts succeeded, as you know. The other two got through security scot-free, only to fail in the air. At least one of them would have gotten through the "improved" security designed to thwart his specific attack. Thus we see that of all the millions of people who fly in the U.S., hardly any are terrorists, and TSA hasn't been able to stop the ones that are.
Perhaps if we did away with all security measures (which, again, NO ONE is actually pushing for) more terrorists would be bold enough to make their attempts. So the terrorist-to-innocent ratio on our flights might go from 1:500 million to 1:30 million, and keep in mind that in airborne terrorism, there are no repeat offenders. Do you feel endangered by those odds?
But given that both post-9/11 attempts failed (due partly to passenger interference, but mostly to incompetence on the part of the terrorist), I wouldn't worry even that much.
The point about Israel is spurious; Israel may have more intrusive security, but it is also more effective. Israel has never had an air-related terror incident, and they make a point of NOT groping their passengers. Also, they've actually caught terrorists BEFORE they've gotten on the plane, something our TSA has never done, and may never do. I'm sure not holding my breath.
Fantastic entry, Jim. I'll be flying in one week. I bought my tickets before all this security nonsense began. This will be the last time I fly for a long time. Not just because of being groped beforehand, but because of my fear of crashing and the general unpleasant atmosphere of flying today. It was different when I was a child. A bit nicer and less paranoid.
Whatever happened to train travel? I'd love to go to my destination by train, but it costs as much as flying and is no faster than automobiles. Something's wrong here.
I'm perfectly willing to risk falling victim to a terrorist attack in exchange for returning to the passenger security we had in place six months ago. Considering that I stand a far greater chance of being struck by lightning, it seems acceptable to me. You can NEVER get the odds down to zero.
And what about screening bags? If I were a terrorist, that's the venue I'd take at this point. Just bomb the planes from the baggage compartment.
I decided a long time ago not to travel by air unless I was crossing an ocean, but rather do all my travelling and visiting by train or bus. Many of my friends think this is hugely inconvenient and time consuming, yet they are wiling to drive long distances to arrive 2 hours early to be stripped searched at a airport and then sit on a tarmac for who knows how long....and with no concern from the airline for the inconvenience. The one time I had a major delay while travelling by Amtrak they kept us regularly updated and brought us all boxed dinners when we clearly werent going to reach our destination by the scheduled dinner time. Greyhound picks me up in the middle of my city and lets me out in the middle of my destination. And either option is less expensive, expecially when travelling as a family.
I never heard of security theater until recently, but now it seems the term is everywhere - all of it is really interesting.
I work at Argonne National Lab, and we just profiled Roger Johnston, a security expert who works here and debunks myths about security. For example - did you know that basically all biometrics (the term for eyeball scanners, etc.) are actually really terrible security? And that GPS can be hacked?
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2010/news101026.html
I have only flown once since 9/11. I remember thinking how ridiculous we looked taking our shoes off before boarding the plane just because one imbecile tried to detonate a "shoe bomb."
According to Jim, that was one time too many.
"According to Jim"!
Ha!
>just because one imbecile tried to detonate a "shoe bomb."
Still one of their most brilliant attempts — not only did the cell get rid of an inept hanger-on, in a cheap attack that was almost designed to fail, but the terrorists managed to get us to insert a layer that slowed efficiency of travel to the point where it has cost businesses — and us — untold millions. Mission accomplished!
When it comes to air travel, I always think back to a lunch I had with a friend in 1999, soon after the ValueJet crash in the Everglades. He was a regional rep manager and spent much of his time flying around the country — and remember, pre-9/11 — said his biggest concern was dying in a terrorist attack in the air. I was incredulous, and pointed out that he was far, far more likely to die in the air due to sheer incompetence, or corner cutting due to corporate greed. And even 9/11 doesn't change that fact.
I'm glad you put that note at the end, Jim, because this is the crankiest you've ever been, at least in my reading. And it was enjoyable.
I don't fly much. I prefer to drive. It's not that I'm scared of planes or heights. I grew up on planes, in fact. My uncle worked for Delta and he would always give my dad stand-by passes for the family. The real reason that I don't fly is that I enjoy driving so much more. The small amount of time that it takes for a plane to take you from one place to another is almost magical to the point where I am often disoriented by it. How is it that I can be freezing in Chicago at 7 in the morning and basking in the Florida sun only 2 hours later? Driving allows me to feel the landscape, to see it pass before my eyes. The Ohio River isn't just some tiny slice of blue that I might happen to see through the clouds, but a powerful swath of water that's flowing beneath me, separated from me only by a bridge; an impressive landmark that marks my place on the map. Distances become palpable. The rising and setting of the sun becomes an event when driving across long distances. And anyway, the food is better when it's closer to the ground.
I apologize for not writing much about security. My attitude towards it is nonchalant. I don't have anything to hide, so I don't care what they see. And while the various stages of security have proven to be a sort of game with terrorists, I'm not sure what else you do. Just let everyone go by? Never check for anything? At the very least some of these security measures might scare of those terrorists who lack a healthy imagination.
The claim that prohibition dropped alcohol consumption by 2/3 is rather spurious but I disagree with the point that example was supposed to reinforce.
The patdowns and the body scans are the very last and weakest line of defense and yet we devote a tremendous amount of resources to it. Reducing the security standards at the airport does not mean that those resources will then not be spent elsewhere. In all probability that money can be spent in other areas and those other areas will do a better job at preventing terrorist attacks.
Airport security has come a long way and is extremely effective which is why terrorists for the most part have given up trying to smuggle weapons and explosives in their luggage nor are they trying to bring firearms onto the plane. They were reduced to bringing boxcutters on planes and that worked not because airport security failed to find those knives but because the airliners, and yes even ourselves, failed to make us recognize the dangers of traveling and what we need to do to protect ourselves. Does anyone here really think that terrorists could pull off another 9/11 in the exact same manner ever again? Do you really think the next time a bunch of terrorists stand up in the aisle brandishing boxcutters that the passengers will simply cower in fear underneath their trayjacks? The fact that passengers will no longer act like helpless sheep is the real reason why terrorists are trying to smuggle explosives onto a plane. It isn't because security is so great.
Speaking of security, are you going to write anything about Wikileaks?
Ah, if only this kind of wild paranoia affected ONLY air travelers. Instead, you see it everywhere. Just look at the ridiculous "zero tolerance" rules on drugs and violence in schools, which have been used to suspend a kid for letting another kid use his asthma inhaler when he was having an attack, or to suspend kids for fighting back against bullies. Or the "sex offender" registries which blacklist people for life if they are accused of a sex offense, even if they are later acquitted in court.
Once our righteous anger is aroused, we invariably advocate irrational overreaction. Anti-terror airport lunacy is merely the latest manifestation of this phenomenon.
Well, we could just ban air travel entirely. There's no absolute need of it.
Or we could do the more obvious and effective: stop issuing visas to individuals coming from Yemen and Pakistan and any other country known to harbor terrorists. Cancel existing visas, then locate and deport anyone currently here on visas from terrorist-hosting countries, and then shut the door at as many points of entry as possible. (This means even our own citizens traveling outbound to those countries and then returning get a serious inspection.) Let conference calls and web-video meetings take the place of whatever business needs to be conducted.
Make travel to and from those places so difficult and painful that no ordinary traveler will want to do it. Those that remain....
What if people who still want to travel just want to visit his/her relatives so he/she can listen to his/her parent complain she wants something nicer to wear since everyone else praying in the mosque has a nicer hijab?
It is almost like people from those countries are actual human beings and are reluctant to go against the majority, (works in all religions) and just try to maintain some semblance of sanity.
Do you seriously think this solution would work? You do realize that they would simply avoid coming to America directly from one of those countries, right? And you're totally discounting people who already live in the country and become radicalized.
Jim, I think this is rather appropriate:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?db=comics&id=2080
"If you fly, your chances of dying will increase measurably, and you should face up to that fact."
Jim, that's just not true. If you don't fly, you're probably driving somewhere instead, meaning your chances of dying are higher.
This whole post sounds kind of a wacky to me. "It's just bad. Bad, bad, bad. Nobody has to travel, unless it's an emergency and you have to go help somebody in another distant locale. Otherwise, it's probably frivolous and decadent."
Maybe you're surrounded by people who fly everywhere for no reason and throw wads of cash around, but in my universe, flying is still *very* expensive and something you only do if you have to. The last time I flew was when I went to Comic-Con...after being assigned there for work. In a few weeks I'm flying to Oregon -- my family's meeting there for Christmas because that's where my very pregnant sister lives. Both are pretty good examples of reasonable reasons to fly that don't involve rescuing someone from a distant locale.
I hope you feel better soon. When you do, I'd suggest re-reading your post.
Hyperbole is a perfectly legitimate (and sometimes satirical) literary device. And, of course, I'm comparing flying with not traveling, not flying with driving. What you describe seem like perfectly reasonable reasons to fly, but yes I know of many, many people who don't think twice about hopping on a plane (especially if they can write off the trip as a business expense). My point was to say that these security measures are ridiculous, but if you object to them, maybe you can consider if you really need to fly or not. Thank you, for the good wishes, though: I hope I feel better soon, too. This crud has been clogging my head and chest for a month now.
This is nonsense. We went for a decade without screening, and anyone with a gun could say "Take me to Cuba" and get there. Once the screening began, the incidence of incidents dropped to zero.
Spending more on "intelligence and investigation" wouldn't have found the underwear bomber. Or the shoe bomber. And, having been stopped by passengers, how long will it take these deluded nuts to figure out that they should go light themselves off in the bathroom instead of in their seat? There goes the "alert passenger" defense, right out the window, along with the rest of the airplane.
It was a lucky tip from Saudi Arabia that alerted us to the printer cartridge. Can we count on that next time? Who is advocating putting the safety of US air carriers in the hands of foreign intelligence services, again?
One wonders if we are faced with the choice of doing no screening at all, or doing no intelligence and investigation at all - or will it be a combination of both? If we are do to "some" screening, then we have 98% of the expense and hassle anyway; you have to pay screeners to stand there, you have to get people to stand in line, you have to run the machines. What's the proposal again? To "save all that money"?
Clearly - not a lot of clear thinking in this thread.
By the time somebody makes it to the airport, the chances of catching them are very slim. Schneirer isn't saying do away with all airport security measures; he's saying at some point all this stuff that wouldn't even have stopped previous perpetrators becomes irrational and counterproductive. It's not about saving time and money -- it's about concentrating resources where they can have the greatest effect. The vast majority of these terrorists do not fit the profile of the "lone assassin"; they are already known to be affiliated with known terrorists and terrorist groups. So, let's concentrate our efforts on watching them and stopping them before they act. If you recall, several of the 9/11 hijackers were already under surveillance and should have been apprehended long before they got on their planes. The whole plot could have been foiled months earlier -- we already had the information and didn't follow up -- but all they had were box cutters, which weren't forbidden. There are plenty of ways around all the wasteful airport security measures currently in effect. Are more of them going to make us safer? Not likely. I'm just sayin': You buys your plane ticket and you takes your chance. Don't think all this stuff is really making you any safer, because it's not. As Schneirer says, the only things that have made us significantly safer since 9/11 have been strengthening and locking cockpit doors and urging passengers to "fight back." In fact, the "underwear bomber" was already identified, his visa had been flagged, and he was already on terrorist watchlists, but he wasn't watched closely enough, so he went through screening and was allowed on the plane. Scanners would not have found the "shoe bomber's" PETN, either. Both were subdued by passengers and airline crew once they were in flight. Current airport security still is not effective against the weapons they used. And it won't be against the next one, either...
Something that no one ever seems to point out in this discussion is that all of these attacks (the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the printer cartridge bomb, etc.) have originated outside of the United States. All of these guys got on planes bound for the U.S. from foreign countries. But the security agencies that make a lot of money by selling the rapescan equipment have us convinced that we need to do it here.
Metal detectors and baggage scanners, I can handle. But with all of the crap you have to go through to fly, plus the added time that it takes to go through it, makes it more worth it to drive. I don't have to pay extra for bags, pillows, entertainment or anything else. I can also take along the family for the same cost that it would if I went alone. That's worth taking my chances with the 18-wheelers and cell-phone addicts on the nation's highways.
Jim,
You hit a very big nail on its very big head with you're reply to Rick so let me be more blunt:
9/11 was an intelligence failure, not an airport security failure. Having a hobbyist interest in the intelligence community and terrorism since I lost a friend on Pan Am 103, most of the reading I have done sways to one inarguable conclusion; thousands of potential attacks have been thwarted by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and some foreign agencies we seem to forget. The 9/11 hijackers were on the radar, there was just a massive communication breakdown between rival intelligence agencies that allowed them to slip back off.
There was a pundit on The Colbert Report a few weeks ago who said it perfectly, that if our last line of defense against a potential terrorist attack is airport security, we have already failed. While thousands of potential attacks have been thwarted by the intelligence community in the past 4 decades, can we honestly name one instance where airport security has done the same?
A great man once said those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Not bad for a scientist and newspaper editor who would cringe at what we have allowed in our airports today.
I think it's a bigger issue than 'if you don't like what the TSA is doing, don't fly.' The current procedures are a dreadful violation of the 4th amendment. Should we just turn aside and say, 'well, I can avoid it so I don't care'?
Jeffrey Simons is right to quote Ben Franklin. If we're willing to give up our liberties, or require other people to give up theirs, then we've come a long way downhill from the ideals this country was founded on.
The problem is that the general attitude of Americans the last few decades has been that they don't mind giving up their rights if they feel they are being made safer: "Well, why would anyone object to a search if they have nothing to hide?" There goes the Fourth Amendment right there. Of course, when THEY are subject to search, they don't like it at all! Pat-downs are for terrorists, not for us! You're right -- it is a much bigger issue, but my point was simply that the searches aren't accomplishing what they say they're accomplishing anyway. (They wouldn't have caught the materials used by the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber, for example.) They are mild, largely ineffectual annoyances. But if people really find them too intrusive (as I said, I don't, and I've had to go through them every time I've flown for the last year and a half), they should choose not to fly. The quickest way to get action is to hit the airlines and airports where it hurts: at the bottom line. These corporations (and the government itself) don't care about rights; they care about money.
**By the time somebody makes it to the airport, the chances of catching them are very slim. **
Clearly the point is that they're not making it to the airport, or even trying much anymore. That, in itself, is a "victory" of sorts. Up until 1957 there was roughly one hijacking annually. Then, until 1967, about 5. In 1968 there were 38. In 1969, 82. When enforcement and screening at the airport stepped up, the incidence suddenly, and quickly decreased and that stasis lasted decades, at least until a new round of more imaginative terrorists stepped up.
**It's not about saving time and money -- it's about concentrating resources where they can have the greatest effect.**
Unless you are going to remove all security and screening personnel from airports, you are going to have 98% of the expense regardless. If you have to spend the money there anyway, where are these new "resources" going to come from?
Look, I don't like this screening crap any more than anyone else, but the simple fact is that you don't protect your building by leaving the doors open and conducting 'intelligence' into who might rob you, and you can't rely on just one level of security against a foe with changing tactics.
The screening at the airports may or may not be 'too much', *for the record, I find it too intrusive, too, but not to the extent that some here do) but I suspect when the next guy gets aboard a plane and manages to bring it down, the verdict will be 'too little' rather than the other way around.
**When enforcement and screening at the airport stepped up, the incidence suddenly, and quickly decreased and that stasis lasted decades, at least until a new round of more imaginative terrorists stepped up.**
I'm not so certain screening has the causal effect you're alleging. Our intelligence gathering peaked significantly during this time frame as well. Screening may have kept out the emotional loonies, but intelligence kept out the committed fanatics. Again, look only at 9/11. NOT a screening failure as much as a massive intelligence failure. These hijackers were on the intelligence radar with several federal agents screaming at the top of their lungs that these guys were dangerous. And they executed their plans with box cutters. Good solid HUMINT (human intelligence) is far more effective (and cost efficient and less intrusive on our personal liberties) than anything the TSA concocts.
The problem with this attitude towards airport security is that it is eerily similar to the attitude towards "enhanced interrogation techniques" . . . claims of their effectiveness are rather suspect, and most interrogation experts agree that torture is the most ineffective tool towards gathering information from a detained suspect. Most security experts echo the same assessment of the TSA.
The bottom line is these techniques may appear to have short term gains and successes, but in the long run they are mostly ineffective and further define our society as fearful and brutish, rather than accepting of the risks in order to preserve our personal freedoms and dignity.
For what it's worth, it's "Schneier," which is misspelled twice in the article and once in a comment.
That's worth a lot. Thanks, Keith. I fixed 'em.
They announced yesterday the US Congress will allow TSA workers to unionize.They also failed to pass a "whistle-blower" protection law, thinking it leads to "Wikileaks" scenarios in one reporters opinion. Unionized they may help sort some of the airport protection out. In the "old days" I took a PACE exam, testing for US government "savvy" and was told at an interview, the US Customs employees at JFK were a "paramilitary" organization, for a temp job. A suitcase exploded a few days later and the Reagan administration got rid of the PACE exam, and broke the air traffic controllers union. We should prevent terrorism but we also should see the "forest for the trees" and require a better overall transportation system.They say there's one "around the corner".
Leave a comment