There isn't a ton of concrete detail out there, but I've basically heard it compared to low intensity dentist x-rays, for a shorter exposure time.
Hmm, soft xrays are close the UV... I wonder if a healthy application of those transplant level sunblocks would help prevent some of the concerns. They are sort of a blue-metallic color.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
Yeah, if you think about it, an airplane isn't such a great target given a large bomb is not going to be easy to get on board in any case, it's just very dramatic. But if some group detonated bombs in airports scattered across the country, that would be way more effective than any number of shitty underwear bombs
The reason why airplanes are targets have more to do with the fact that one the bomb explodes, they most likely will not stay in the air, and all that fuel is rather combustible.
A giant fireball in the air is impressive sure, but, at cruising altitude I'm not sure it would even ignite and there's still the problem of getting a bomb big enough. Just blowing out a window isn't going to do anything except to the person sitting next to you
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
Yeah, if you think about it, an airplane isn't such a great target given a large bomb is not going to be easy to get on board in any case, it's just very dramatic. But if some group detonated bombs in airports scattered across the country, that would be way more effective than any number of shitty underwear bombs
The reason why airplanes are targets have more to do with the fact that one the bomb explodes, they most likely will not stay in the air, and all that fuel is rather combustible.
A giant fireball in the air is impressive sure, but, at cruising altitude I'm not sure it would even ignite and there's still the problem of getting a bomb big enough. Just blowing out a window isn't going to do anything except to the person sitting next to you
I think his point was more that the bomb is guaranteed to kill everyone on board, rather than just a handful of people in the proximity of a bomb on the ground.
And that wreckage and fuel has to land somewhere. Lockerbie killed at least a couple people on the ground.
I still think it's a waste to try to get an actual bomb on board. You could have 5-10 guys load up the liquid dispense garbage can before the security checkpoint with water bottles full of glycerin, have one guy throw out a bomb, then press the button to detonate it from the other side of the security checkpoint, and no one would know who did it. This costs almost nothing, would have a high kill rate in a busy airport, would cripple our economy, and the best part (for them) is that the guys doing it wouldn't get hurt or face criminal charges.
So if you choose to enter an airport and fly, you give up any rights?
That's good to know.
The TSA is clear to do actual strip searches now, and strap remote shock collars on all passengers now.
Extend this logic to everything.
You choose to walk outside. Therefore you have no right to not be searched.
Or shot for that matter.
Police can just shoot suspects now.
I mean, they chose to look suspicious.
I really fucking hate pro big brother apologia.
that is not what anyone in this thread has said.
you impliedly consent to have your person and your bag searched, the point people are making. others are saying even if it is a warrantless search, it is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional given the context.
come on now.
Consenting to having your person and bag search is consent to be x-rayed, viewed nude, why not cavity searched or strip searched too?
An arbitrary line is drawn, and it is pushed just as far as the government thinks it can get away with.
No one has said these are all good things. No one. Pretty much everyone has stated their dissatisfaction with the TSA and the way they do things. What people haven't done is decried the government for not treating the fourth amendment as absolute with the exception of Melkster. Now if you think it should be absolute by all means make your case but will you please stop arguing against things no one has claimed to want?
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
Yeah, if you think about it, an airplane isn't such a great target given a large bomb is not going to be easy to get on board in any case, it's just very dramatic. But if some group detonated bombs in airports scattered across the country, that would be way more effective than any number of shitty underwear bombs
The reason why airplanes are targets have more to do with the fact that one the bomb explodes, they most likely will not stay in the air, and all that fuel is rather combustible.
A giant fireball in the air is impressive sure, but, at cruising altitude I'm not sure it would even ignite and there's still the problem of getting a bomb big enough. Just blowing out a window isn't going to do anything except to the person sitting next to you
I think his point was more that the bomb is guaranteed to kill everyone on board, rather than just a handful of people in the proximity of a bomb on the ground.
You still have to get to the fuel and then ignite it. AFAIK on commerical craft the fuel is stored in the wings & belly, passengers on top and cargo between, so you'd have to have a bomb big enough to get through all that, but small enough as to not be super obvious
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
Agreed, but making an appeal to histrionics isn't helpful unless there's sound evidence that it's at all plausible.
Yes, random cavity searches would be horrible and indefensible. Good thing no one is suggesting we be okay with that.
People have already been groped and abused by TSA, many accounts of people who decline the body scanner being punished physically during their physical search.
But it's just histronics and slippery slope so it's cool.
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
Agreed, but making an appeal to histrionics isn't helpful unless there's sound evidence that it's at all plausible.
Yes, random cavity searches would be horrible and indefensible. Good thing no one is suggesting we be okay with that.
People have already been groped and abused by TSA, many accounts of people who decline the body scanner being punished physically during their physical search.
But it's just histronics and slippery slope so it's cool.
Nobody condoned that behavior. nor cavity searches. which you appeared to think are inevitable, but I'm not sure why.
Do you have an actual point? Do you think tsa should be searching people at all? If so, what kinds of search do you think is reasonable?
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
Agreed, but making an appeal to histrionics isn't helpful unless there's sound evidence that it's at all plausible.
Yes, random cavity searches would be horrible and indefensible. Good thing no one is suggesting we be okay with that.
People have already been groped and abused by TSA, many accounts of people who decline the body scanner being punished physically during their physical search.
But it's just histronics and slippery slope so it's cool.
Then good thing like Ross said no one has said at any point they're okay with that.
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
Agreed, but making an appeal to histrionics isn't helpful unless there's sound evidence that it's at all plausible.
Yes, random cavity searches would be horrible and indefensible. Good thing no one is suggesting we be okay with that.
People have already been groped and abused by TSA, many accounts of people who decline the body scanner being punished physically during their physical search.
But it's just histronics and slippery slope so it's cool.
Nobody condoned that behavior. nor cavity searches. which you appeared to think are inevitable, but I'm not sure why.
Do you have an actual point? Do you think tsa should be searching people at all? If so, what kinds of search do you think is reasonable?
I don't think the TSA should exist. I would like to see us return to private airport security, they can keep all the fancy equipment that the people already paid for-I don't think they could possibly use it less effectively than the TSA.
Our airport security screenings are little more than security theater. They have little chance of preventing a well planned terrorist attack. We should focus on profiling individuals like the Israelis do, and stop creating these deliberate clogs of people in packed areas where anyone with a bomb could inflict maximum damage before they even got up to the actual screening area, let alone went through it.
Our airport security is the perfect example of what people have started to warn against in the Sandy Hook gun control threads. "We have to do something! Anything! Who cares if it's good as long as we're doing something!"
Multiply that mentality by 100 and you have our post 9-11 airport security.
It wouldn't be so much of an imposition if it were effective, but it's actually really bad security.
I generally would agree that everything the TSA does nowadays could be described at 60% security theater, 30% making sure you don't have pot in your carry-on, and 10% deterrence. The thing is, we should probably take a step back for a moment and consider that since 9/11, our government has actually become really, really good at counter-terrorism. Like, better than most people would like to give them credit for. We recognize today that rather than focusing on site security, the best methodology is to disrupt would-be terrorists in the planning phase. In 2010, for instance, Faisal Shahzad attempted to "bomb" Times Square with a vehicle packed with fireworks, a couple propane canisters, and a small container of a urea-based fertilizer that he erroneously believed would function like an ammonium nitrate-based fertilizer in a ANFO bomb. He was charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, but frankly, he's too fucking stupid for me to feel like that's fair play. The simple fact is that we've made it extraordinarily difficult for the aspiring militant to find someone with the technical expertise to create something that will actually explode. So you either hope that a propane tanks explode in real life the same way they do in Die Hard like Mr. Shahzad, or you risk trying to find an explosives expert knowing full well that at least one potential candidate you talk to is an FBI informant. Six months later, someone will hand you a cell phone and tell you that the first number on speed dial will remotely detonate a bomb, but when you dial, it connects you to the direct line at the National Counterterrorism Center, where the duty officer starts reading you your rights between giggles.
None of this requires the TSA. Of course, if someone ever gets lucky and slips through the cracks, no one ever wants to explain to a room full of surviving family members why the TSA was dismantled previously, so I doubt it will ever happen.
Hijacking the plane is obtaining the bomb they want to use. It's not the end-goal.
This is not a threat anymore. Between 9/11 and locked cockpits, using planes as weapons themselves simply doesn't work anymore.
It could still be feasible for hostage taking if the hostages don't immediately overrun the terrorists for fear of attempts of using the plane as a weapon, but deterring that doesn't require random searches or extensive detainment after people are already past the scanners/metal detectors.
Oh, right. Excellent. Uncontrolled crashing is still an option, but that's a sucky bomb.
If you destroy a plane, its millions of dollars for the plane, fuel, plus insurance costs, plus lawsuits of passengers. a PR nightmare for the brand. This doesnt count if they use the plane to hit something.
If a bunch of people die in line from a bomb, its lost lives and lawsuits. Maybe structural damage to the building. The costs are not comparable, hense why they dont mind you forming a very long line at a chokepoint in the airport.
If you destroy a plane, its millions of dollars for the plane, fuel, plus insurance costs, plus lawsuits of passengers. a PR nightmare for the brand. This doesnt count if they use the plane to hit something.
If a bunch of people die in line from a bomb, its lost lives and lawsuits. Maybe structural damage to the building. The costs are not comparable, hense why they dont mind you forming a very long line at a chokepoint in the airport.
I disagree. On average, each dead US citizen will cost society millions in insurance claims, lost revenue, and forfeited development of that citizen (suddenly that dead doctor's medical training is worthless). I would expect a coordinated attack across 10-15 major airports on a busy travel day like the day before Thanksgiving. Even if only 100 people were killed, this would cripple the airline industry and our economy. People would be too scared to fly while the TSA searches for answers to how they can screen people without queuing them up in contained quarters.
I'll give you that they may not mind having the long line. After all, it's their investment in an aircraft that they don't want to outright lose to a bomb detonation. However, I personally worry about this. It wouldn't take much to initiate such an attack.
If you destroy a plane, its millions of dollars for the plane, fuel, plus insurance costs, plus lawsuits of passengers. a PR nightmare for the brand. This doesnt count if they use the plane to hit something.
If a bunch of people die in line from a bomb, its lost lives and lawsuits. Maybe structural damage to the building. The costs are not comparable, hense why they dont mind you forming a very long line at a chokepoint in the airport.
I disagree. On average, each dead US citizen will cost society millions in insurance claims, lost revenue, and forfeited development of that citizen (suddenly that dead doctor's medical training is worthless). I would expect a coordinated attack across 10-15 major airports on a busy travel day like the day before Thanksgiving. Even if only 100 people were killed, this would cripple the airline industry and our economy. People would be too scared to fly while the TSA searches for answers to how they can screen people without queuing them up in contained quarters.
I'll give you that they may not mind having the long line. After all, it's their investment in an aircraft that they don't want to outright lose to a bomb detonation. However, I personally worry about this. It wouldn't take much to initiate such an attack.
It wouldn't take much to initiate such an attack?
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
And all this - just to disrupt our transportation network which - and I want to stress this - isn't that major of a target. The transportation network has been a means to an end. On 9/11 it was a source of weapons and in Japan (Sarin) / London / Madrid the transportation system simply represented a soft and highly populated target.
There are some crazies out there, and there are terrorists, but they aren't going to conduct an expensive and difficult mission, risking a significant amount of manpower, to make Aunt Fran and Uncle Bob drive to Vegas instead of fly.
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I guess I've just never given it that much thought. People talk about the radiation, but you're going to get more radiation during the flight than the machine is going to give you. I really never cared of the TSA saw my junk. I just go through the motions and get on my plane. For me, the bigger pain is the wait, not the actual search.
I know there have been some very embarrassing incidents for people (the lady with the "personal pleasure device" in her bags), but in most cases that came down to the individual professionalism of the TSA agent, not the procedures.
IMO, the possibility of unprofessional law enforcement officers is a big reason why the framers put the fourth amendment in bill of rights. If law enforcement agents were always perfect human beings who never did anything wrong and were totally professional and compassionate all the time, then maybe we wouldn't even need the fourth amendment.
But the fact is that a significant percentage of all law enforcement will act unprofessionally. As such, we need protection from them. Hence, the fourth (and other) amendments.
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
I guess I've just never given it that much thought. People talk about the radiation, but you're going to get more radiation during the flight than the machine is going to give you. I really never cared of the TSA saw my junk. I just go through the motions and get on my plane. For me, the bigger pain is the wait, not the actual search.
I know there have been some very embarrassing incidents for people (the lady with the "personal pleasure device" in her bags), but in most cases that came down to the individual professionalism of the TSA agent, not the procedures.
IMO, the possibility of unprofessional law enforcement officers is a big reason why the framers put the fourth amendment in bill of rights. If law enforcement agents were always perfect human beings who never did anything wrong and were totally professional and compassionate all the time, then maybe we wouldn't even need the fourth amendment.
But the fact is that a significant percentage of all law enforcement will act unprofessionally . As such, we need protection from them. Hence, the fourth (and other) amendments.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I disagree and don't think that is the strongest reason for the protection against search and seizure. The fourth is a check on government power in general. I guess if you want to read that as 'cops are bad' that's up to you.
Historically the 4th amendment is important because British troops would literally walk into people's homes or stop them in person and rob them.
To say Americans have a problem with cops is an understatement. The 4th was strictly intended to prevent any government employee (cop, TSA, the president) from just taking your shit because they want it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
The fact that it hasn't happened post-9/11 has nothing to do with airport security procedures.
They are useless.
Law enforcement (real law enforcement, not the TSA) and intelligence have prevented such attacks from happening while they are still nascent whiffs of terroristic intent.
It would behoove us to spend money on that, and not on porno scanners and 50,000 signs telling people they must not transport dangerous illegal toothpaste.
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
The fact that it hasn't happened post-9/11 has nothing to do with airport security procedures.
They are useless.
Law enforcement (real law enforcement, not the TSA) and intelligence have prevented such attacks from happening while they are still nascent whiffs of terroristic intent.
It would behoove us to spend money on that, and not on porno scanners and 50,000 signs telling people they must not transport dangerous illegal toothpaste.
So we should spend money on spying on people.
I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to the tension between security and personal liberties, but let's be clear about what we're talking about -- unless I've misunderstood you.
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
The fact that it hasn't happened post-9/11 has nothing to do with airport security procedures.
They are useless.
Law enforcement (real law enforcement, not the TSA) and intelligence have prevented such attacks from happening while they are still nascent whiffs of terroristic intent.
It would behoove us to spend money on that, and not on porno scanners and 50,000 signs telling people they must not transport dangerous illegal toothpaste.
So we should spend money on spying on people.
I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to the tension between security and personal liberties, but let's be clear about what we're talking about -- unless I've misunderstood you.
Like I said, it's much more acceptable to put up with things when they are actually effective.
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
The fact that it hasn't happened post-9/11 has nothing to do with airport security procedures.
They are useless.
Law enforcement (real law enforcement, not the TSA) and intelligence have prevented such attacks from happening while they are still nascent whiffs of terroristic intent.
It would behoove us to spend money on that, and not on porno scanners and 50,000 signs telling people they must not transport dangerous illegal toothpaste.
So we should spend money on spying on people.
I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to the tension between security and personal liberties, but let's be clear about what we're talking about -- unless I've misunderstood you.
Like I said, it's much more acceptable to put up with things when they are actually effective.
wiretapping anyone we want without a warrant
very effective
easier to support?
I don't get your argument. The most effective thing would be to trample personal liberty completely.
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
The fact that it hasn't happened post-9/11 has nothing to do with airport security procedures.
They are useless.
Law enforcement (real law enforcement, not the TSA) and intelligence have prevented such attacks from happening while they are still nascent whiffs of terroristic intent.
It would behoove us to spend money on that, and not on porno scanners and 50,000 signs telling people they must not transport dangerous illegal toothpaste.
So we should spend money on spying on people.
I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to the tension between security and personal liberties, but let's be clear about what we're talking about -- unless I've misunderstood you.
Like I said, it's much more acceptable to put up with things when they are actually effective.
wiretapping anyone we want without a warrant
very effective
easier to support?
I don't get your argument. The most effective thing would be to trample personal liberty completely.
No one ever hijacked an airplane while shackled to the floor!
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
It would be an order of magnitude less than another 9/11: getting 19 guys through the borders, getting them trained on how to fly a jet plane, getting them through security with enough weaponry to subdue the passengers, and convincing them to kill themselves for Allah. On the other hand, you have a threat that doesn't involve suicide, with minimal training required. I see no reason why they couldn't have a trained chemist manufacture their own explosives here in the States.
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
It would be an order of magnitude less than another 9/11: getting 19 guys through the borders, getting them trained on how to fly a jet plane, getting them through security with enough weaponry to subdue the passengers, and convincing them to kill themselves for Allah. On the other hand, you have a threat that doesn't involve suicide, with minimal training required. I see no reason why they couldn't have a trained chemist manufacture their own explosives here in the States.
Like I said, ask all the assholes who ended up discovering that their chemist was informing on them to the FBI how that worked out for them.
We've gotten so good at denying them the technical expertise they need that what we have to provide them with to be effective borders on outright entrapment.
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
I dunno, it's happened before.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
The fact that it hasn't happened post-9/11 has nothing to do with airport security procedures.
They are useless.
Law enforcement (real law enforcement, not the TSA) and intelligence have prevented such attacks from happening while they are still nascent whiffs of terroristic intent.
It would behoove us to spend money on that, and not on porno scanners and 50,000 signs telling people they must not transport dangerous illegal toothpaste.
So we should spend money on spying on people.
I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to the tension between security and personal liberties, but let's be clear about what we're talking about -- unless I've misunderstood you.
Like I said, it's much more acceptable to put up with things when they are actually effective.
wiretapping anyone we want without a warrant
very effective
easier to support?
I don't get your argument. The most effective thing would be to trample personal liberty completely.
I thought we already were doing warrantless wiretaps of terror suspects?
Or are they just sealed warrants? That would be less distressing, although still not ideal.
However, I still have far fewer issues with measures that are effective than with less egregious measures that are noteworthy for nothing beyond being useless.
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
Agreed, but making an appeal to histrionics isn't helpful unless there's sound evidence that it's at all plausible.
Yes, random cavity searches would be horrible and indefensible. Good thing no one is suggesting we be okay with that.
People have already been groped and abused by TSA, many accounts of people who decline the body scanner being punished physically during their physical search.
But it's just histronics and slippery slope so it's cool.
Nobody condoned that behavior. nor cavity searches. which you appeared to think are inevitable, but I'm not sure why.
Do you have an actual point? Do you think tsa should be searching people at all? If so, what kinds of search do you think is reasonable?
I don't think the TSA should exist. I would like to see us return to private airport security, they can keep all the fancy equipment that the people already paid for-I don't think they could possibly use it less effectively than the TSA.
Our airport security screenings are little more than security theater. They have little chance of preventing a well planned terrorist attack. We should focus on profiling individuals like the Israelis do, and stop creating these deliberate clogs of people in packed areas where anyone with a bomb could inflict maximum damage before they even got up to the actual screening area, let alone went through it.
Our airport security is the perfect example of what people have started to warn against in the Sandy Hook gun control threads. "We have to do something! Anything! Who cares if it's good as long as we're doing something!"
Multiply that mentality by 100 and you have our post 9-11 airport security.
It wouldn't be so much of an imposition if it were effective, but it's actually really bad security.
The issue with trying to implement Israeli style security is that it's just not economically feasible. It works for Israel because they have 2 international airports (really 1.5) and 10 airports that are regional. Ben Gurion has the heaviest security because it has the bulk of the international flights, the kind of flights that you'd be looking to hijack. The best numbers I can find are just for El Al's cost for security which is $100 million or so. This is mostly staffing costs with some hardware costs thrown in. Other carriers would be sharing some cost burdens as well so the likely number would be higher. But we can use that as a nice ball park. El Al carries about 1.3 to 1.5 million passengers a year. So about ~$75 per passenger in screening costs split between the government and El Al. In the US we have ~700,000,000 enplanements per year. Now we can cut that number down if we decide that hijacking a puddle jumper is silly. Lets say that cuts the number of passengers down to a more manageable 500,000,000 passengers. And lets assume that we get some economy of scale and we can get the numbers down to $60 per passenger. That works out to $30 billion a year. Currently the TSA has a budget of $6 billion. And this is a pretty low estimate. I've seen some as high $100 billion.
But that's not the only part. From a physical security perspective, you'd have to replicate the layered security. I've only ever done the math for doing parts of the work but you'd be looking at over $3 billion just to deploy the needed camera and sensor coverage, and that is a very low end estimate. It's also assuming lots of systems working that are mostly untried and supplied by companies like Raytheon. And given Raytheon's fuck up at JFK, I'd expect those costs to go shooting up to deliver a working system. It also doesn't cover the manpower needed to watch the cameras and sensors. It doesn't cover the access control changes that would have to be made either. I have no idea what the structural and roadway changes would cost but I'd be shocked if you could do it under a few hundred billion. There are effectively 500+ airports that would need to be redesigned. The Israeli security system works because Israel is a small country.
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
Agreed, but making an appeal to histrionics isn't helpful unless there's sound evidence that it's at all plausible.
Yes, random cavity searches would be horrible and indefensible. Good thing no one is suggesting we be okay with that.
People have already been groped and abused by TSA, many accounts of people who decline the body scanner being punished physically during their physical search.
But it's just histronics and slippery slope so it's cool.
Nobody condoned that behavior. nor cavity searches. which you appeared to think are inevitable, but I'm not sure why.
Do you have an actual point? Do you think tsa should be searching people at all? If so, what kinds of search do you think is reasonable?
I don't think the TSA should exist. I would like to see us return to private airport security, they can keep all the fancy equipment that the people already paid for-I don't think they could possibly use it less effectively than the TSA.
Our airport security screenings are little more than security theater. They have little chance of preventing a well planned terrorist attack. We should focus on profiling individuals like the Israelis do, and stop creating these deliberate clogs of people in packed areas where anyone with a bomb could inflict maximum damage before they even got up to the actual screening area, let alone went through it.
Our airport security is the perfect example of what people have started to warn against in the Sandy Hook gun control threads. "We have to do something! Anything! Who cares if it's good as long as we're doing something!"
Multiply that mentality by 100 and you have our post 9-11 airport security.
It wouldn't be so much of an imposition if it were effective, but it's actually really bad security.
The issue with trying to implement Israeli style security is that it's just not economically feasible. It works for Israel because they have 2 international airports (really 1.5) and 10 airports that are regional. Ben Gurion has the heaviest security because it has the bulk of the international flights, the kind of flights that you'd be looking to hijack. The best numbers I can find are just for El Al's cost for security which is $100 million or so. This is mostly staffing costs with some hardware costs thrown in. Other carriers would be sharing some cost burdens as well so the likely number would be higher. But we can use that as a nice ball park. El Al carries about 1.3 to 1.5 million passengers a year. So about ~$75 per passenger in screening costs split between the government and El Al. In the US we have ~700,000,000 enplanements per year. Now we can cut that number down if we decide that hijacking a puddle jumper is silly. Lets say that cuts the number of passengers down to a more manageable 500,000,000 passengers. And lets assume that we get some economy of scale and we can get the numbers down to $60 per passenger. That works out to $30 billion a year. Currently the TSA has a budget of $6 billion. And this is a pretty low estimate. I've seen some as high $100 billion.
But that's not the only part. From a physical security perspective, you'd have to replicate the layered security. I've only ever done the math for doing parts of the work but you'd be looking at over $3 billion just to deploy the needed camera and sensor coverage, and that is a very low end estimate. It's also assuming lots of systems working that are mostly untried and supplied by companies like Raytheon. And given Raytheon's fuck up at JFK, I'd expect those costs to go shooting up to deliver a working system. It also doesn't cover the manpower needed to watch the cameras and sensors. It doesn't cover the access control changes that would have to be made either. I have no idea what the structural and roadway changes would cost but I'd be shocked if you could do it under a few hundred billion. There are effectively 500+ airports that would need to be redesigned. The Israeli security system works because Israel is a small country.
Think of THE JOBS YOU JUST CREATED!!! You would be our savior if you ran for president. Just add $60 to everyone's ticket and call it the 9/11 tax.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
Agreed, but making an appeal to histrionics isn't helpful unless there's sound evidence that it's at all plausible.
Yes, random cavity searches would be horrible and indefensible. Good thing no one is suggesting we be okay with that.
People have already been groped and abused by TSA, many accounts of people who decline the body scanner being punished physically during their physical search.
But it's just histronics and slippery slope so it's cool.
Nobody condoned that behavior. nor cavity searches. which you appeared to think are inevitable, but I'm not sure why.
Do you have an actual point? Do you think tsa should be searching people at all? If so, what kinds of search do you think is reasonable?
I don't think the TSA should exist. I would like to see us return to private airport security, they can keep all the fancy equipment that the people already paid for-I don't think they could possibly use it less effectively than the TSA.
Our airport security screenings are little more than security theater. They have little chance of preventing a well planned terrorist attack. We should focus on profiling individuals like the Israelis do, and stop creating these deliberate clogs of people in packed areas where anyone with a bomb could inflict maximum damage before they even got up to the actual screening area, let alone went through it.
Our airport security is the perfect example of what people have started to warn against in the Sandy Hook gun control threads. "We have to do something! Anything! Who cares if it's good as long as we're doing something!"
Multiply that mentality by 100 and you have our post 9-11 airport security.
It wouldn't be so much of an imposition if it were effective, but it's actually really bad security.
The issue with trying to implement Israeli style security is that it's just not economically feasible. It works for Israel because they have 2 international airports (really 1.5) and 10 airports that are regional. Ben Gurion has the heaviest security because it has the bulk of the international flights, the kind of flights that you'd be looking to hijack. The best numbers I can find are just for El Al's cost for security which is $100 million or so. This is mostly staffing costs with some hardware costs thrown in. Other carriers would be sharing some cost burdens as well so the likely number would be higher. But we can use that as a nice ball park. El Al carries about 1.3 to 1.5 million passengers a year. So about ~$75 per passenger in screening costs split between the government and El Al. In the US we have ~700,000,000 enplanements per year. Now we can cut that number down if we decide that hijacking a puddle jumper is silly. Lets say that cuts the number of passengers down to a more manageable 500,000,000 passengers. And lets assume that we get some economy of scale and we can get the numbers down to $60 per passenger. That works out to $30 billion a year. Currently the TSA has a budget of $6 billion. And this is a pretty low estimate. I've seen some as high $100 billion.
But that's not the only part. From a physical security perspective, you'd have to replicate the layered security. I've only ever done the math for doing parts of the work but you'd be looking at over $3 billion just to deploy the needed camera and sensor coverage, and that is a very low end estimate. It's also assuming lots of systems working that are mostly untried and supplied by companies like Raytheon. And given Raytheon's fuck up at JFK, I'd expect those costs to go shooting up to deliver a working system. It also doesn't cover the manpower needed to watch the cameras and sensors. It doesn't cover the access control changes that would have to be made either. I have no idea what the structural and roadway changes would cost but I'd be shocked if you could do it under a few hundred billion. There are effectively 500+ airports that would need to be redesigned. The Israeli security system works because Israel is a small country.
Think of THE JOBS YOU JUST CREATED!!! You would be our savior if you ran for president. Just add $60 to everyone's ticket and call it the 9/11 tax.
A couple of estimates put it at around 4 million staff needed. Which would make the TSA the largest employer in the world. We would have more TSA staff then we do DoD staff.
Well I guess we could institute my mandatory anal probe security plan then.
In a couple of months the number of people flying would decline to a manageable number!
If it sounds silly, well, that's just because we haven't had a terrorist put a bomb in his colon yet. Once we do, the TSA will be all over it since instituting sweeping policy to respond to a bizarre attack that already happened is basically all they are capable of.
Posts
Hmm, soft xrays are close the UV... I wonder if a healthy application of those transplant level sunblocks would help prevent some of the concerns. They are sort of a blue-metallic color.
A giant fireball in the air is impressive sure, but, at cruising altitude I'm not sure it would even ignite and there's still the problem of getting a bomb big enough. Just blowing out a window isn't going to do anything except to the person sitting next to you
I still think it's a waste to try to get an actual bomb on board. You could have 5-10 guys load up the liquid dispense garbage can before the security checkpoint with water bottles full of glycerin, have one guy throw out a bomb, then press the button to detonate it from the other side of the security checkpoint, and no one would know who did it. This costs almost nothing, would have a high kill rate in a busy airport, would cripple our economy, and the best part (for them) is that the guys doing it wouldn't get hurt or face criminal charges.
"No, if you're gonna kill someone with a plane, this is how you do it...!"
No one has said these are all good things. No one. Pretty much everyone has stated their dissatisfaction with the TSA and the way they do things. What people haven't done is decried the government for not treating the fourth amendment as absolute with the exception of Melkster. Now if you think it should be absolute by all means make your case but will you please stop arguing against things no one has claimed to want?
You still have to get to the fuel and then ignite it. AFAIK on commerical craft the fuel is stored in the wings & belly, passengers on top and cargo between, so you'd have to have a bomb big enough to get through all that, but small enough as to not be super obvious
People have already been groped and abused by TSA, many accounts of people who decline the body scanner being punished physically during their physical search.
But it's just histronics and slippery slope so it's cool.
Nobody condoned that behavior. nor cavity searches. which you appeared to think are inevitable, but I'm not sure why.
Do you have an actual point? Do you think tsa should be searching people at all? If so, what kinds of search do you think is reasonable?
Then good thing like Ross said no one has said at any point they're okay with that.
I don't think the TSA should exist. I would like to see us return to private airport security, they can keep all the fancy equipment that the people already paid for-I don't think they could possibly use it less effectively than the TSA.
Our airport security screenings are little more than security theater. They have little chance of preventing a well planned terrorist attack. We should focus on profiling individuals like the Israelis do, and stop creating these deliberate clogs of people in packed areas where anyone with a bomb could inflict maximum damage before they even got up to the actual screening area, let alone went through it.
Our airport security is the perfect example of what people have started to warn against in the Sandy Hook gun control threads. "We have to do something! Anything! Who cares if it's good as long as we're doing something!"
Multiply that mentality by 100 and you have our post 9-11 airport security.
It wouldn't be so much of an imposition if it were effective, but it's actually really bad security.
None of this requires the TSA. Of course, if someone ever gets lucky and slips through the cracks, no one ever wants to explain to a room full of surviving family members why the TSA was dismantled previously, so I doubt it will ever happen.
Oh, right. Excellent. Uncontrolled crashing is still an option, but that's a sucky bomb.
If a bunch of people die in line from a bomb, its lost lives and lawsuits. Maybe structural damage to the building. The costs are not comparable, hense why they dont mind you forming a very long line at a chokepoint in the airport.
I'll give you that they may not mind having the long line. After all, it's their investment in an aircraft that they don't want to outright lose to a bomb detonation. However, I personally worry about this. It wouldn't take much to initiate such an attack.
It wouldn't take much to initiate such an attack?
Are you kidding? You think it wouldn't take much to conduct a coordinated multi-state (if not nationwide) attack that would require a minimum of ten to fifteen participants with their own transportation and multiple explosive devices? You're talking about recruiting a dozen Americans, or sneaking in a dozen terrorists into America without any getting picked up, without any of them being informants? These people either need to be dedicated enough to commit suicide, or the explosives need to be sophisticated enough to be reliable.
And all this - just to disrupt our transportation network which - and I want to stress this - isn't that major of a target. The transportation network has been a means to an end. On 9/11 it was a source of weapons and in Japan (Sarin) / London / Madrid the transportation system simply represented a soft and highly populated target.
There are some crazies out there, and there are terrorists, but they aren't going to conduct an expensive and difficult mission, risking a significant amount of manpower, to make Aunt Fran and Uncle Bob drive to Vegas instead of fly.
I dunno, it's happened before.
IMO, the possibility of unprofessional law enforcement officers is a big reason why the framers put the fourth amendment in bill of rights. If law enforcement agents were always perfect human beings who never did anything wrong and were totally professional and compassionate all the time, then maybe we wouldn't even need the fourth amendment.
But the fact is that a significant percentage of all law enforcement will act unprofessionally. As such, we need protection from them. Hence, the fourth (and other) amendments.
Yeah, pre-9/11.
Even then, it was a pretty expansive operation - not something that 'didn't take much'.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I disagree and don't think that is the strongest reason for the protection against search and seizure. The fourth is a check on government power in general. I guess if you want to read that as 'cops are bad' that's up to you.
To say Americans have a problem with cops is an understatement. The 4th was strictly intended to prevent any government employee (cop, TSA, the president) from just taking your shit because they want it.
The fact that it hasn't happened post-9/11 has nothing to do with airport security procedures.
They are useless.
Law enforcement (real law enforcement, not the TSA) and intelligence have prevented such attacks from happening while they are still nascent whiffs of terroristic intent.
It would behoove us to spend money on that, and not on porno scanners and 50,000 signs telling people they must not transport dangerous illegal toothpaste.
So we should spend money on spying on people.
I don't pretend to have the perfect answer to the tension between security and personal liberties, but let's be clear about what we're talking about -- unless I've misunderstood you.
Like I said, it's much more acceptable to put up with things when they are actually effective.
wiretapping anyone we want without a warrant
very effective
easier to support?
I don't get your argument. The most effective thing would be to trample personal liberty completely.
No one ever hijacked an airplane while shackled to the floor!
It would be an order of magnitude less than another 9/11: getting 19 guys through the borders, getting them trained on how to fly a jet plane, getting them through security with enough weaponry to subdue the passengers, and convincing them to kill themselves for Allah. On the other hand, you have a threat that doesn't involve suicide, with minimal training required. I see no reason why they couldn't have a trained chemist manufacture their own explosives here in the States.
Like I said, ask all the assholes who ended up discovering that their chemist was informing on them to the FBI how that worked out for them.
We've gotten so good at denying them the technical expertise they need that what we have to provide them with to be effective borders on outright entrapment.
I thought we already were doing warrantless wiretaps of terror suspects?
Or are they just sealed warrants? That would be less distressing, although still not ideal.
However, I still have far fewer issues with measures that are effective than with less egregious measures that are noteworthy for nothing beyond being useless.
That was another Tom Clancy book.
The issue with trying to implement Israeli style security is that it's just not economically feasible. It works for Israel because they have 2 international airports (really 1.5) and 10 airports that are regional. Ben Gurion has the heaviest security because it has the bulk of the international flights, the kind of flights that you'd be looking to hijack. The best numbers I can find are just for El Al's cost for security which is $100 million or so. This is mostly staffing costs with some hardware costs thrown in. Other carriers would be sharing some cost burdens as well so the likely number would be higher. But we can use that as a nice ball park. El Al carries about 1.3 to 1.5 million passengers a year. So about ~$75 per passenger in screening costs split between the government and El Al. In the US we have ~700,000,000 enplanements per year. Now we can cut that number down if we decide that hijacking a puddle jumper is silly. Lets say that cuts the number of passengers down to a more manageable 500,000,000 passengers. And lets assume that we get some economy of scale and we can get the numbers down to $60 per passenger. That works out to $30 billion a year. Currently the TSA has a budget of $6 billion. And this is a pretty low estimate. I've seen some as high $100 billion.
But that's not the only part. From a physical security perspective, you'd have to replicate the layered security. I've only ever done the math for doing parts of the work but you'd be looking at over $3 billion just to deploy the needed camera and sensor coverage, and that is a very low end estimate. It's also assuming lots of systems working that are mostly untried and supplied by companies like Raytheon. And given Raytheon's fuck up at JFK, I'd expect those costs to go shooting up to deliver a working system. It also doesn't cover the manpower needed to watch the cameras and sensors. It doesn't cover the access control changes that would have to be made either. I have no idea what the structural and roadway changes would cost but I'd be shocked if you could do it under a few hundred billion. There are effectively 500+ airports that would need to be redesigned. The Israeli security system works because Israel is a small country.
Aren't they all?
A couple of estimates put it at around 4 million staff needed. Which would make the TSA the largest employer in the world. We would have more TSA staff then we do DoD staff.
In a couple of months the number of people flying would decline to a manageable number!
If it sounds silly, well, that's just because we haven't had a terrorist put a bomb in his colon yet. Once we do, the TSA will be all over it since instituting sweeping policy to respond to a bizarre attack that already happened is basically all they are capable of.