My conclusion about all of this is that the government wants people to be afraid. These are not real attempts to detect threats to flights. If anything, they're most interested in finding drugs and smuggled valuables. And this is not 'security theater'. The intent is to get everyone used to invasive, police-state style behavior.
I don't think it's so much that the government wants people to be afraid as it is CYA for the people in charge. Politicians want to claim that they've made things safer and none of them are brave enough to say: "Lets take things down a notch because they're ineffective."
It's similar to the state of "tough on crime" policies like 3 strikes and mandatory minimum sentences - even when proven ineffective no one wants to reverse the statutes for fear of being seen as weak on crime.
It's not that governments want people scared, rather there's no incentive to avoid scaring the public. And so officials go ahead with their politically expedient security theater. The officials get the benefit of appearing to "do something" while the resulting inconvenience and "scare" never wash back on them.
My take on it is that there is a large class of people who like to be afraid. It seems to give them a sense of purpose to have an implacable enemy to worry about. I wish they would worry about something more practical, though, like cancer.
Please, enough with the fear mongering and 1984 predictions of doom. What is happening is not even remotely close to what a police state is (please read up on some history of Eastern Europe) and saying that the "government wants us to be afraid" is right there with the worst unfounded conspiracy theories.
Let's give a hard time to the TSA and try to fix it, but let's not give into easy paranoia in the process.
I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best. I seem to read articles like this or articles advocating "Israelification" about once a week.
The thing that bothers me most is TSA has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to? Some bureaucratic process decides we can't wear shoes, bring water bottles, or (the latest new rule) can't bring more than 16 oz. of printer cartridges through a checkpoint.
There's no debate, partisan or otherwise; there's no angry constituents. Instead it is the TSA who decides these things, and no congressman can be anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security.
I'm also pretty sure TSA is part of the executive branch - so do we complain to Obama, then...?
Yes, the TSA is part of the Executive Branch, so it ultimately reports to Obama.
On a related note, you may wish to read Friedrich von Hayek's book, published in 1944, The Road To Serfdom. He covers many subjects in this book, but one of them is the danger that arises when the legislative branch delegates wholesale powers to the executive branch, or, as you say, "has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to?" Hayek worried about this separation of responsibility from power.
Hayek was, in part, looking at the British system, which is Parliamentary. They have some advantage there in that there is a clear separation between the head of state and the head of government. The USA is the only democracy that has ever tried to combine these two offices. The fact that no other country has ever imitated this aspect of American government (whereas most other aspects of the American Constitution have been imitated) says a lot about what a bad idea this is. In most democracies, the people are free to show their respect and veneration for the (usually powerless) head of state, and the people feel free to show scathing disrespect to the (powerful) head of government. In the USA, the people often have mixed emotions - when you criticize the head of government, you are also criticizing the head of state, so people typically pull their punches, and use language that is more respectful that what typically gets directed at a head of government in other democracies.
Congress has a couple of opportunities to step forward. The TSA wants a bunch of money in next year's budget for additional scanners, and with the small government attitude of the incoming Congress this is a great opportunity to stop them. Also, with Jason Chaffetz taking over the House subcommittee with oversight, and an general sense that TSA isn't real popular right now, we might see some more assertiveness in general. So #1 on the list of people to complain to is your Representative and Senators.
If you're a frequent flyer, call your airline. The airlines are a powerful lobbying force and we we need to get them more engaged. We've talked to them a couple times after driving/training (instead of flying) and one time we got a very sympathetic CSR who told us they're getting a lot of calls and very concerned about their business. Even if you haven't changed your travel plans yet, let them know that you're thinking about it. Reassure them you know it's not their fault, but ask them to weigh in with DHS and Congress to get things changed.
> I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best.
How large is the group of people who think it isn't wasted effort?
I recently had a conversation with a group of well-traveled, well-educated people who honestly believed that the new scanners and pat-downs are okay because they are designed for our own safety. The 4th Amendment was never a concern to them. When I brought it up, the answer was essentially that the end justified the means. Ben Franklin's famous words[1] did not convince them otherwise.
How are you (general) educating people about their rights?
Also recommended reading are Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear" which provides a great mental framework for thinking about security (mainly IRL, but with applications in computing)
Kevin Drum made a point that stuck with me in defense of TSA procedures (which I am otherwise inclined to find odious.)
That is that the political and cultural environment is such right now that if a plane goes down due to terrorism, the country is going to go crazy and clamp down really hard on civil liberties in a truly damaging way. So we should prefer measures that, while intrusive, are generally pretty limited.
He argues that it is all well and good to say that "planes will go down but that's a small price to pay", but when it actually happens, life will be worse for everyone.
The idealist in me is disappointed to consider this argument, but it seems pretty realistic.
There's a flaw in Kevin's argument: the odious measures don't actually reduce the chance of a plane going around to terrorism. In fact by diverting resources from more effective security measures (e.g. focusing on cargo) they actually increase the chance.
The US should act more like Israel: accept that acts of terrorism will happen, don't publicize it, just clean it up and quietly go after the bad guys. And, most of all, don't act terrified--just go about business as usual.
With the wave of opposition to the TSA and legislative battles over the Internet Wiretapping bill, COICA, and the Patriot Act renewal, 2011 will go a long way to determining what kind of country we'll be. So articles like this are a great opportunity to ask yourself ...
"Plus, don’t let a plane take off if someone has checked in luggage but isn’t on board"
I'm pretty sure that is already the case, at least for international flights. I've been on numerous planes that got delayed because a passenger didn't show up and the airline had to unload their luggage.
Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses. From the social stigma given to those riding a bicycle without a helmet to the demand for cradle to grave protection by the government: we are not our forefathers.
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelbuckbee|15 years ago|reply
It's similar to the state of "tough on crime" policies like 3 strikes and mandatory minimum sentences - even when proven ineffective no one wants to reverse the statutes for fear of being seen as weak on crime.
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickmode|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Estragon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billmcneale|15 years ago|reply
Let's give a hard time to the TSA and try to fix it, but let's not give into easy paranoia in the process.
[+] [-] JimboOmega|15 years ago|reply
The thing that bothers me most is TSA has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to? Some bureaucratic process decides we can't wear shoes, bring water bottles, or (the latest new rule) can't bring more than 16 oz. of printer cartridges through a checkpoint.
There's no debate, partisan or otherwise; there's no angry constituents. Instead it is the TSA who decides these things, and no congressman can be anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security.
I'm also pretty sure TSA is part of the executive branch - so do we complain to Obama, then...?
[+] [-] lkrubner|15 years ago|reply
On a related note, you may wish to read Friedrich von Hayek's book, published in 1944, The Road To Serfdom. He covers many subjects in this book, but one of them is the danger that arises when the legislative branch delegates wholesale powers to the executive branch, or, as you say, "has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to?" Hayek worried about this separation of responsibility from power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom
Hayek was, in part, looking at the British system, which is Parliamentary. They have some advantage there in that there is a clear separation between the head of state and the head of government. The USA is the only democracy that has ever tried to combine these two offices. The fact that no other country has ever imitated this aspect of American government (whereas most other aspects of the American Constitution have been imitated) says a lot about what a bad idea this is. In most democracies, the people are free to show their respect and veneration for the (usually powerless) head of state, and the people feel free to show scathing disrespect to the (powerful) head of government. In the USA, the people often have mixed emotions - when you criticize the head of government, you are also criticizing the head of state, so people typically pull their punches, and use language that is more respectful that what typically gets directed at a head of government in other democracies.
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
If you're a frequent flyer, call your airline. The airlines are a powerful lobbying force and we we need to get them more engaged. We've talked to them a couple times after driving/training (instead of flying) and one time we got a very sympathetic CSR who told us they're getting a lot of calls and very concerned about their business. Even if you haven't changed your travel plans yet, let them know that you're thinking about it. Reassure them you know it's not their fault, but ask them to weigh in with DHS and Congress to get things changed.
[+] [-] LiveTheDream|15 years ago|reply
How large is the group of people who think it isn't wasted effort?
I recently had a conversation with a group of well-traveled, well-educated people who honestly believed that the new scanners and pat-downs are okay because they are designed for our own safety. The 4th Amendment was never a concern to them. When I brought it up, the answer was essentially that the end justified the means. Ben Franklin's famous words[1] did not convince them otherwise.
How are you (general) educating people about their rights?
[1] http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html
[+] [-] mindcrime|15 years ago|reply
Ron Paul has been pretty vocal in his dislike for the TSA.
[+] [-] zdw|15 years ago|reply
http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html
and his blog:
http://www.schneier.com/
[+] [-] michaelty|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enjalot|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blatherard|15 years ago|reply
That is that the political and cultural environment is such right now that if a plane goes down due to terrorism, the country is going to go crazy and clamp down really hard on civil liberties in a truly damaging way. So we should prefer measures that, while intrusive, are generally pretty limited.
He argues that it is all well and good to say that "planes will go down but that's a small price to pay", but when it actually happens, life will be worse for everyone.
The idealist in me is disappointed to consider this argument, but it seems pretty realistic.
It's towards the end of this blog post http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/my-tsa-anti-rant
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
With the wave of opposition to the TSA and legislative battles over the Internet Wiretapping bill, COICA, and the Patriot Act renewal, 2011 will go a long way to determining what kind of country we'll be. So articles like this are a great opportunity to ask yourself ...
Are you going to get involved and help?
[+] [-] bingaman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julian37|15 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure that is already the case, at least for international flights. I've been on numerous planes that got delayed because a passenger didn't show up and the airline had to unload their luggage.
[+] [-] forgotAgain|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j_baker|15 years ago|reply
All the things that are wrong with our nation and the best phrase to describe the situation is "wusses"? Are we still in High School?
[+] [-] nphase|15 years ago|reply
Before 9/11, it was just another risk of flying. Now...
[+] [-] tutufunk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
Why is it necessary?
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sdghrth|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]