Security vs Liberty

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,931
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
Just wanted to stand back and look at the situation from afar, and with an 'as unbiased view as possible', with the following:
Security vs Liberty
There will be the civil liberty folks who will say 'No TSA, no security measures, we will take our chances!' (I tend to lean that way a bit) And the other extreme, 'Zero risk, even if it means no flying!'
Most everyone is somewhere in-between those two extremes.
Maybe we should identify, specifically, where we stand.

If you were to reduce all the arguments and rhetoric to say, an equation involving money & deaths, what would it look like? (We have to be realists. There is no way to prevent every last terrorist attack, and deaths are going to occur, the question is how many can we stand.)

For eg;
Would yours look like, "Spending more than $44B per year on TSA-type activities is our limit. That amount will result, on average, 300 US airline fatals per year but we cannot spend any more." (the 300 is hypothetical)

Or, if you were to put it into a deaths vs what the TSA can do, what would you say?
Would it be something like, "Even if it results in 500 deaths per year, we should not accept these pat-downs or imaging techniques." (it would be nice to have some real numbers, do projections exist?)

Putting it into numbers of fatals each year will make a large group shy away from limiting the TSA in any manner. My personal feeling is that our security measures should have a limit - however we must be willing to stomach the thought that some will die. The only question is how many.

No security, and surely the numbers will be higher - do we not all accept that? Conversely, boarding naked and without baggage would result in few (but not zero) terrorist deaths in decades to come.
 
I want to know how many terrorist attacks the TSA has stopped. How many shoe bombers or underwear bombers have they caught? How many guns or explosive material have been found with all this expensive equipment and touchy-feely pat downs?

And why is it that the TSA employees DO NOT have to be subjected to the same security measures that travelers do? How do i know that some TSA flunky cannot be bribed to bring a weapon to work and pass it off to some would be hijacker AFTER that hijacker has gone through security?

Until EVERYONE that is allowed past the security line is either a) put through the scanner or b) groped, then I say we should spend NOTHING.
 
We accept 50K deaths per year in Automobiles. Why spend so much in an attempt to eliminate all airline related deaths?
 
skidoo said:
We accept 50K deaths per year in Automobiles. Why spend so much in an attempt to eliminate all airline related deaths?
Click to expand...

But, that's where the sensational news comes from... where would the evening news (yep, dating myself there) be without plane crashes?
 
The whole TSA thing is what happens when you create a bureaucracy to do ONE thing. In this case, the *thing* is security. So, for the TSA, their only mandate is security, not common sense, not effectiveness, not anything else.

Security is all the organization does, regardless of the consequences. Kinda like the Terminator in the old (circa 1985) movie. It only does one thing, there's no stopping it. It can't be killed. It doesn't have emotion. And there is no reasoning with it.

No doubt security for aircraft is necessary, but as someone else posted, how many devices has the TSA found? I'd suspect the $44 billion/yr the TSA spends would be better spent infiltrating organizations which would choose to spread terror into the US.

Put a sniffer at the gate. If the sniffer detects explosives, THEN do the scans, pat-downs, etc. The passengers and/or the armored cabin door will take care of everything else.
 
Some principles are more important than any risk-based analysis.

As far as the "war on terrorism" I, for one, believe we should draw them (terrorists) out and deal with them, not continue to humiliate our own citizenry in the name of security. This is a war. Some collateral damage is expected. Better now than a century of fear that no amount of government spending will eliminate.
 
kyleb said:
The whole TSA thing is what happens when you create a bureaucracy to do ONE thing. In this case, the *thing* is security. So, for the TSA, their only mandate is security, not common sense, not effectiveness, not anything else.
Click to expand...

Their mandate is the appearance of security.

What they do, they do where the general public can see. Where the public can't see, there is much less security.

You can smuggle whole people into aircraft if you come in the employee enterances...
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
No security, and surely the numbers will be higher - do we not all accept that?
Click to expand...

No, I don't.

Given the fact that both the shoe bomber and underwear bomber were both caught by their fellow passengers, I think the premise that we need more security post 9/11 is absurd. After all, once the passengers of United Flight 93 learned of the World Trade Center Attack, they did what TSA failed to do, prevent terrorism.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Their mandate is the appearance of security.

What they do, they do where the general public can see. Where the public can't see, there is much less security.

You can smuggle whole people into aircraft if you come in the employee enterances...
Click to expand...
Exactly.

It's not about providing security (that's a secondary motivation). The TSA is here to sell the appearance of security to the voters.

Personally, I want some security at airports. The airlines were spending less than a billion a year on security when they were in charge, and that was perfectly adequate. We're now spending multiples of that.
 
It's not about how much we spend, it's about how well that money is spent.

Right now, we're spending a metric assload of money on things that create the illusion of security. I bet we could spend maybe 1/4 of the money that's being spent right now and have MUCH better security, if it was about real security instead of making people feel good about themselves when they fly.

So, I don't care to put a dollar figure on it - But let's only spend what needs to be spent, and use the most effective measures rather than the ones that *appear* to be the most effective.
 
skidoo said:
We accept 50K deaths per year in Automobiles. Why spend so much in an attempt to eliminate all airline related deaths?
Click to expand...

Of course the difference is that those are one, two at a time usually while a plane load full of passengers is another story, smoke, fire, lots of bodies, etc.
 
I think people had sort of accepted the security measures post 9-11. Yeah they sucked but, heck, throw your belt and shoes in the x-ray machine and be on your way.

Now they've ramped up security and people are p1$$ed. Why? Because no event really prompted it. There is no perceived benefit to it, only huge downsides. People are protective of their personal space and now THAT'S no longer sacred.

They need to simply profile the demographic that has proven to be a threat in the past. Send THAT demographic through the scanner / pat down. Not grandma or little Johnny.
 
I'm starting to wonder whether the best solution would be to get government out of the business again. For example, make individual airlines responsible for their own terminal and pre-flight security, and forbid them from carrying insurance that would indemnify them in the event of a terror attack.

The airlines would then have to balance their security procedures between two undesirable extremes: Security so intrusive that it would propel passengers toward competing airlines, versus lax security that could result in an attack that could quite possibly put an airline out of business.

It's harebrained, but at least it would require that the people dictating the screening procedures put some thought into their decisions and be held accountable for their procedures.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I'm starting to wonder whether the best solution would be to get government out of the business again. For example, make individual airlines responsible for their own terminal and pre-flight security, and forbid them from carrying insurance that would indemnify them in the event of a terror attack.

The airlines would then have to balance their security procedures between two undesirable extremes: Security so intrusive that it would propel passengers toward competing airlines, versus lax security that could result in an attack that could quite possibly put an airline out of business.

It's harebrained, but at least it would require that the people dictating the screening procedures put some thought into their decisions and be held accountable for their procedures.
Click to expand...
How is that going to work when multiple airlines use the same screening checkpoint?
 
EppyGA said:
Of course the difference is that those are one, two at a time usually while a plane load full of passengers is another story, smoke, fire, lots of bodies, etc.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the potential for massive losses to non-aviation targets, as occurs when planes are used as missiles and flown into buildings. So to be fair, there are considerations beyond the safety of the flight crew and pax.

On the other hand, the likelihood of terrorists commandeering an airplane was significantly reduced simply by strengthening the cockpit doors, and could be virtually eliminated by adding toilets in the cockpit, thus removing the one remaining reason why pilots on a typical flight would ever have to open the door in-flight.

In any event, the potential for casualties on the ground doesn't mean that common sense and civil liberties get thrown away in the quest for the impossible goal of absolute safety. Balance is still vital, whether we're talking about the potential for disaster in the air or on the ground.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Stop using the same screening checkpoints.
Click to expand...
OK but I can see some logistical problems with that. However since all this is only theoretical I guess it doesn't matter.
 
What all this TSA theatrics really is, is nothing more than an inconvenience. I think what many peoples greatest concern is where our country is heading.

We did not like nor approve of The Patriot Act, however, it did not affect us personally, so we pretty much ignored it. So what if a few bad people lose their rights?

All this water boarding and cages in Cuba had noting to do with us, so we did not care other than a few talking heads and pundits on television told us it was a bad thing.

Now, things are starting to affect a bunch of us, but we, at least most of our lot, will, in the end, accept the tightened security on our behalf.

It is not the airport security that frightens some of us, it is what will be next? We know there will be more. We do not like to think of ourselves as sheep, yet we know the bulk of our fellow citizens are exactly that. We know that our government could simply tell us the right to assemble and speak openly is a privilege, and for security reasons, they are updating our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We know the bulk of our population would accept such heavy handedness, that is what is frightening us.

It is not what is happening now, it is what we believe is going to happen. I think many of us, but not enough of us, fear our own government much more than we fear terrorists.

John
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Some principles are more important than any risk-based analysis.

As far as the "war on terrorism" I, for one, believe we should draw them (terrorists) out and deal with them, not continue to humiliate our own citizenry in the name of security. This is a war. Some collateral damage is expected. Better now than a century of fear that no amount of government spending will eliminate.
Click to expand...

Well-said, sir.

flyingcheesehead said:
It's not about how much we spend, it's about how well that money is spent.

Right now, we're spending a metric assload of money on things that create the illusion of security. I bet we could spend maybe 1/4 of the money that's being spent right now and have MUCH better security, if it was about real security instead of making people feel good about themselves when they fly.

So, I don't care to put a dollar figure on it - But let's only spend what needs to be spent, and use the most effective measures rather than the ones that *appear* to be the most effective.
Click to expand...

Kent: It's a Metric Crap-Ton, not a Metric Ass-Load. Get your metrics straight.

And, you're right. The TSA's principal function is preservation of its bureuacracy, and expansion of its mission. This is the essential nature of every bureaucracy, and it has ever been thus. The "security" mission is incidental to TSA's existence.

RJM62 said:
Stop using the same screening checkpoints.
Click to expand...

Why not?
 
Everskyward said:
OK but I can see some logistical problems with that. However since all this is only theoretical I guess it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of it comes down to money, actually.

TSOs aren't the highest-paid bunch of civil servants, so the job doesn't attract the highest caliber of people. It's more likely to attract people with serious control and domination issues. It would be a decidedly unpleasant job for average people -- you know, people who don't like to grope and fondle people all day while standing a few feet from several sources of radiation (which TSA won't even let the TSOs monitor with dosimeters, I'm told).

Certainly we couldn't expect to use the current crop of TSOs to implement procedures such as used by Israel. Those procedures require highly-educated and specially-trained personnel who can quickly assess passengers' threat levels simply by observing and talking to them. You don't get that caliber of person at a starting salary of $29,131 a year.

Making each airline responsible for their own security and not sharing checkpoints is also largely a financial issue, except in cases when an airline may have so few flights to and from a particular airport that it's just not practical for them to run their own security. In that case, using another carrier's checkpoint would be a necessity.

But maybe it wouldn't really make a difference: The airline doing the screening would still bear the liability, I'd think, regardless of whose flight they were screening.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I think a lot of it comes down to money, actually.
Click to expand...
Doesn't everything?

RJM62 said:
TSOs aren't the highest-paid bunch of civil servants, so the job doesn't attract the highest caliber of people. It's more likely to attract people with serious control and domination issues. It would be a decidedly unpleasant job for average people -- you know, people who don't like to grope and fondle people all day while standing a few feet from several sources of radiation (which TSA won't even let the TSOs monitor with dosimeters, I'm told).
Click to expand...
Here I'm going to do something unthinkable and defend the TSA agents. At least the ones in Denver are consistently friendly and pleasant, even when giving you extra screening. Over the past year or so I have been making a point to notice. I think it may be the result of the company culture here which doesn't necessarily encompass the whole TSA because I have seen unfriendly, rude agents in other cities. To me that says the company culture can change overall if some effort is spent in that direction.

RJM62 said:
Certainly we couldn't expect to use the current crop of TSOs to implement procedures such as used by Israel. Those procedures require highly-educated and specially-trained personnel who can quickly assess passengers' threat levels simply by observing and talking to them. You don't get that caliber of person at a starting salary of $29,131 a year.
Click to expand...
I'm sure some (many?) of your pilots are starting at less than that...

Besides, I remember when the airlines did the screening in the past, people were complaining about the burger flipper caliber and pay of people they were hiring.

As far as profiling is concerned, personally I would rather go through the scanner than play 20 questions with an agent but that is just me.

RJM62 said:
Making each airline responsible for their own security and not sharing checkpoints is also largely a financial issue, except in cases when an airline may have so few flights to and from a particular airport that it's just not practical for them to run their own security. In that case, using another carrier's checkpoint would be a necessity.

But maybe it wouldn't really make a difference: The airline doing the screening would still bear the liability, I'd think, regardless of whose flight they were screening.
Click to expand...
While I think there is merit to the idea that you could choose your level of security I think that in the end people will still choose their flights based on price. In addition you made a good point in an earlier post in that the thing that got people's attention on 9/11 was not the people who died in the airplanes but the casualties on the ground. That and the fact that there were 4 airplanes hijacked simultaneously. If it had been just one airplane which crashed in a remote area I don't think that would have gotten people riled up as much.
 
Everskyward said:
Doesn't everything?

Here I'm going to do something unthinkable and defend the TSA agents. At least the ones in Denver are consistently friendly and pleasant, even when giving you extra screening. Over the past year or so I have been making a point to notice.
Click to expand...

Most of the individuals I have run across in Detroit, Washington, and Orlando have been reasonably polite and sometimes downright helpful. However, I still have no intrest in being groped by them just so it looks like they are "doing something".
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That is unworkable at a place like O'Hare.
Click to expand...

Why? Does O'Hare not have gate agents? Screening at the jetway. You're standing in line waiting for the tool in 3A to put all his crap in the overhead bin anyway.
 
Let people with concealed carry permits carry their guns on the planes.

I don't mind going through a metal detector to make sure I don't have any bombs on board. But the fact that I can't carry a pocket knife, can't carry toothpaste, etc. is just far too much. This is where people get the idea of the "slippery slope," as we are definitely too far down it. I'm approaching the point where I'll just fly myself everywhere, even if it costs 10x as much to do so. Where we are only serves to create jobs (which I think is probably a good portion of why the TSA exists) and hassle the law-abiding citizens, residents, and visitors to our country.
 
EdFred said:
Why? Does O'Hare not have gate agents? Screening at the jetway. You're standing in line waiting for the tool in 3A to put all his crap in the overhead bin anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, two per gate, at most. They don't have the time, nor the training to do that sort of thing. Besides, you would go from a hand full of scanners to several hundred.

Like I said, unworkable.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, two per gate, at most. They don't have the time, nor the training to do that sort of thing. Besides, you would go from a hand full of scanners to several hundred.

Like I said, unworkable.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about scanners?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Most of the individuals I have run across in Detroit, Washington, and Orlando have been reasonably polite and sometimes downright helpful. However, I still have no intrest in being groped by them just so it looks like they are "doing something".
Click to expand...

LOL, good point. I come across many people every day, and most are reasonably polite and friendly. That doesn't mean I want to be fondled by them.

-Rich
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Define "screen" then.
Click to expand...

However the individual airlines feel like doing it. Me personally, if we are sacrificing liberty, I would take the opposite approach, and re-equip the planes with a "go to sleep" switch. If prescriptions can have a laundry list of side effects, then there's no reason that the back of a ticket can't have a list of same things. If flying is voluntary, and we've decided that we don't get any rights, then by the same token, we shouldn't be "guaranteed" any protections, and just have it be that, yeah, if someone else on the plane attempts to do something stupid, you may be rendered unconscious for the remainder of the flight.
 
They're attempting to do that with advanced algorithms, however, it's my understanding that since detection relies on physical properties of the materials, and plastic explosives approximate human tissue in density, texture, and composition, at least as sensed by the remote detectors, it makes it very difficult to tag. Metals are much easier to identify.

It's time for the single use rocket belt. One person. One belt. One flight.

Greg Bockelman said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/21/AR2010112104320.html

If the machine can filter out clothing, it can be programmed to filter out the human body. Why isn't anyone pushing that angle?
Click to expand...
 
RJM62 said:
Stop using the same screening checkpoints.
Click to expand...

Already done at some airports. SIN comes to mind.

Greg Bockelman said:
That is unworkable at a place like O'Hare.
Click to expand...

ORD is unworkable. Just try and make a 1/2 hour connection when you arrive on B and depart on C. Not one of my favorite airports. But, it's not alone on my "dislike" list.
 
Ghery said:
ORD is unworkable. Just try and make a 1/2 hour connection when you arrive on B and depart on C. Not one of my favorite airports. But, it's not alone on my "dislike" list.
Click to expand...
Shoot arrive at B1 depart at B22 is hard enough in 30 minutes thanks to the thousands of walking dead in those terminals!

I wonder what is next up in the security theater. Clear security at a remote location and then get bused into the terminals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top