It's something to have to agree to in order to enter in the airport. No body is forcing the search on you. You certainly can travel another way. Same thing as having my toolbox searched when I went into the courthouse to fix typewriters back in the 90s.
This said I still advocate some kind of "cleared fliers list" for airplane crews and other frequent travelers.
What if there were security checkpoints outside your town that randomly stop vehicles and search them for "security" purposes? Would that be ok too? After all, nobody is forcing you to leave town.
Entering a building is different than using a roadway but don't we have these already. I think they are called roadblocks and they are used for a variety of things. I'd question if it was necessary to keep them up permanently. Just like I wonder if there is a better way to handle these searches.
_________________ I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"
It's something to have to agree to in order to enter in the airport. No body is forcing the search on you. You certainly can travel another way. Same thing as having my toolbox searched when I went into the courthouse to fix typewriters back in the 90s.
This said I still advocate some kind of "cleared fliers list" for airplane crews and other frequent travelers.
What if there were security checkpoints outside your town that randomly stop vehicles and search them for "security" purposes? Would that be ok too? After all, nobody is forcing you to leave town.
Entering a building is different than using a roadway but don't we have these already. I think they are called roadblocks and they are used for a variety of things. I'd question if it was necessary to keep them up permanently. Just like I wonder if there is a better way to handle these searches.
A better way is to not search at all. It's clearly a large scheme to keep people employed and to extort tax money over hyped up threats. How many shopping malls get bombed per year in the U.S.?
I realize that response is just a successful attempt at being an *** with what you think to be a cute rebuttal of a short statement. However, you should probably pick a less stupid statement on your part to defend.
Logic, not to mention recent events, disprove your statement.
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am Posts: 3879 Location: 63368
Ladas wrote:
I realize that response is just a successful attempt at being an *** with what you think to be a cute rebuttal of a short statement. However, you should probably pick a less stupid statement on your part to defend.
Logic, not to mention recent events, disprove your statement.
I don't see you doing anything other than being disagreeable. No logical support for your assertion, no evidence... just a bald assertion.
You have nothing other than a desire to be disagreeable, and follow up by calling me an ***.
**** you.
Ladas wrote:
It does not such thing.
It's not even grammatically correct. "Fail" is too kind a way to describe your argument.
Additionly if the allegations of impropriety with these searches needs to be addressed, but that doesn't mean they should go away.
It's my opinion that they should. It's an unnecessary hassle. The TSA have never caught a single terrorist.
That just proves they've forced terrorists to divert to another attack vector, which means they are successful.
Yes, you have made the assertion. What evidence do you have that this is the case? If your only evidence is that they've not caught any terrorists, that's just silly, as there have been incidents in which weapons, including explosives, have made it past the screenings.
As you mention other vectors, why not blow up a Mall as Lex asked? Why have there been no Mall bombings in the US? You'd think that if the TSA were as successful as you assert, the terrorists would go after a softer target, and a mall would be both soft and create the panic they desire.
_________________ "Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am Posts: 3879 Location: 63368
There have been attacks planned for the US and other nations, some of which have been successful (see the link) and some, not.
Terrorism requires opportunity, and reducing the apparent opportunity to successfully complete a mission by very publicly advertising the fact there are searches encourages terrorists to pick a softer target.
Yes, it's closing the barn door after the horse escapes, but like I said, you don't have as much to worry about another horse getting out the same way.
I don't see any in the US at your link, maybe I'm missing them.
The point of my saying "there have been incidents in which weapons, including explosives, have made it past the screenings" was to show that the opportunity exists, if the terrorists have picked softer targets, why haven;t there been explosions in Malls across the country? They're pretty damn soft targets.
_________________ "Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
Since actual airplane hijackings are fantastically unlikely to ever succeed again regardless of what gets through security, you only need to worry about people trying to blow up the planes. A pretty good case can be made that the radiation from these scanners will kill more people than they protect from airplane bombs.
The TSA exists to provide a relatively cheap illusion of security so the average American can both feel safe but not have to wait in line longer than fifteen minutes. The fact that people are getting irradiated is irrelevant, this is the US where people will go eat at the McDonald's fast food window in order to save three minutes. The government can't do nothing, because then people would be too scared to get on planes. But at the same time they can't implement real security, because forcing everyone to arrive 4+ hours early would also never be accepted. So we get this bastard hybrid where we spend millions not doing anything useful so a lot of idiots can feel safe. It's a lot like gun control, to be honest.
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am Posts: 3879 Location: 63368
Vindicarre wrote:
I don't see any in the US at your link, maybe I'm missing them.
The point of my saying "there have been incidents in which weapons, including explosives, have made it past the screenings" was to show that the opportunity exists, if the terrorists have picked softer targets, why haven;t there been explosions in Malls across the country? They're pretty damn soft targets.
'Cause there are softer ones in other countries, and there are plots that have been uncovered here in the US at softer targets, they've just been uncovered before they were successful.
Bottom line is, as much ***** as folks are doing about how inconvenient these measures are... how intrusive, how much a violation of privacy they are, they're also inconvenient, intrusive and a violation of privacy to terrorists too. That's going to point them in another direction.
Terrorism requires some measure of privacy and secrecy to exist to be successful, and eliminating the lowest hanging fruit eliminates the greatest majority of opportunities for an attack. You'll not deter someone forever, but I'm good with discouraging them as much as possible and forcing them to go to greater lengths to accomplish their objectives.
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am Posts: 3879 Location: 63368
Xequecal wrote:
Since actual airplane hijackings are fantastically unlikely to ever succeed again regardless of what gets through security, you only need to worry about people trying to blow up the planes. A pretty good case can be made that the radiation from these scanners will kill more people than they protect from airplane bombs.
A backscatter scan exposes you to the same amount of radiation you would experience during two minutes of a cross-country or ocean plane flight, thanks to cosmic radiation in the atmosphere.
Quote:
The TSA exists to provide a relatively cheap illusion of security so the average American can both feel safe but not have to wait in line longer than fifteen minutes. The fact that people are getting irradiated is irrelevant, this is the US where people will go eat at the McDonald's fast food window in order to save three minutes. The government can't do nothing, because then people would be too scared to get on planes. But at the same time they can't implement real security, because forcing everyone to arrive 4+ hours early would also never be accepted. So we get this bastard hybrid where we spend millions not doing anything useful so a lot of idiots can feel safe. It's a lot like gun control, to be honest.
I disagree. It's not cheap at all, and from what I see of those scanners, I think they'll be a great deterrent to anyone trying to take dangerous material on a plane.
Yes, the radiation dose is very low, but hundreds of millions of people will go through these scanners. Even a 0.0001% chance of causing cancer would still result in hundreds of new cancer cases per year.
What the TSA does is cheap compared to what El-Al does. The reactive "security" provided by the TSA is of dubious value, it hasn't forced terrorists to seek other targets to attack, there have been plenty of plots, none of which have been foiled by the TSA.
I don't see any in the US at your link, maybe I'm missing them.
The point of my saying "there have been incidents in which weapons, including explosives, have made it past the screenings" was to show that the opportunity exists, if the terrorists have picked softer targets, why haven;t there been explosions in Malls across the country? They're pretty damn soft targets.
'Cause there are softer ones in other countries, and there are plots that have been uncovered here in the US at softer targets, they've just been uncovered before they were successful.
Bottom line is, as much ***** as folks are doing about how inconvenient these measures are... how intrusive, how much a violation of privacy they are, they're also inconvenient, intrusive and a violation of privacy to terrorists too. That's going to point them in another direction.
Terrorism requires some measure of privacy and secrecy to exist to be successful, and eliminating the lowest hanging fruit eliminates the greatest majority of opportunities for an attack. You'll not deter someone forever, but I'm good with discouraging them as much as possible and forcing them to go to greater lengths to accomplish their objectives.
You keep saying that, but you don't show evidence of it. Which softer targets? What could be softer or more effective than a place where people congregate with minimal (and I mean rent-a-cop at best minimal) security and everyone carries bags? What greater lengths does a pat-down or body scan cause the terrorists to go to? These "screenings" are security theater, they're designed to make you feel like they're doing something, but don't effectively stop someone from blowing up a plane. Yeah, we can't carry on a bottle of water since someone thought they'd try something a Nobel Laureate couldn't pull off. It's been proven they don't stop people from carrying on bomb-making materials on their person, in their body cavities or in the their carry-on luggage (not to mention their checked baggage). They couldn't compare in the most minimal sense to a simple, non-invasive, bomb-sniffing dog.
Taskiss wrote:
It's not cheap at all, and from what I see of those scanners, I think they'll be a great deterrent to anyone trying to take dangerous material on a plane.
Nope, they're not cheap, and they're ineffective, unless you think not detecting Thermite is effective.
Quote:
Well, let's hope the bad guys weren't watching German television last week. A demonstration of one of those highfalutin—and highly invasive—full-body airport scanners caught a Swiss Army Knife and a cellphone, but none of the, uh, bomb components.
The big reveal comes at around 2:07, and is moderately to extremely terrifying. As Schneier on Security points out, the subject didn't get scanned from the side. That's reassuring until you see that there were still a few front-facing explosive bits that got through, and he didn't even have to hide anything in a body cavity.
So, to sum up: full-body scanners are equal parts creepy and ineffective, the end.
_________________ "Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
Since actual airplane hijackings are fantastically unlikely to ever succeed again regardless of what gets through security, you only need to worry about people trying to blow up the planes.
That's really pretty silly. Such hijakings are unlikely to succeed again if knives get through. Other things might get through which could indeed make it work again especially if the terrorists choose their target carefully.
Quote:
A pretty good case can be made that the radiation from these scanners will kill more people than they protect from airplane bombs.
There are plenty of good cases to be made against body scanners, but this is not one of them. Can you actuall provide any evidence of this, or is this yet another case of you just thinking it up on your own and spouting off about it with no understanding whatsoever of what you're talking about?
Quote:
The TSA exists to provide a relatively cheap illusion of security so the average American can both feel safe but not have to wait in line longer than fifteen minutes. The fact that people are getting irradiated is irrelevant, this is the US where people will go eat at the McDonald's fast food window in order to save three minutes. The government can't do nothing, because then people would be too scared to get on planes. But at the same time they can't implement real security, because forcing everyone to arrive 4+ hours early would also never be accepted. So we get this bastard hybrid where we spend millions not doing anything useful so a lot of idiots can feel safe. It's a lot like gun control, to be honest.
Sort of. In point of fact it's possible to have better security and be less intrusive; the Israelis do it and I beleive we've discussed exactly that here. It exists not to give the illusion of security, because it does make security better than it would otherwise be if for no other reason that it discourages the incompetant and unimaginative. It exists to give security without offending the sensibilities of the "recial profiling!!!!" crowd, and for that reason is intrusive on everyone and less effective than it would otherwise be.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am Posts: 3879 Location: 63368
Vindicarre wrote:
You keep saying that, but you don't show evidence of it. Which softer targets?
The targets that terrorists are successful in attacking, which I've linked.
Quote:
What could be softer or more effective than a place where people congregate with minimal (and I mean rent-a-cop at best minimal) security and everyone carries bags?
Targets where there isn't any security.
Quote:
What greater lengths does a pat-down or body scan cause the terrorists to go to?
Using improvised explosive devices made out of laser printer toner cartridges, for one.
Quote:
These "screenings" are security theater, they're designed to make you feel like they're doing something, but don't effectively stop someone from blowing up a plane. Yeah, we can't carry on a bottle of water since someone thought they'd try something a Nobel Laureate couldn't pull off. It's been proven they don't stop people from carrying on bomb-making materials on their person, in their body cavities or in the their carry-on luggage (not to mention their checked baggage). They couldn't compare in the most minimal sense to a simple, non-invasive, bomb-sniffing dog.
They cause terrorists to select targets with less security. See the link for examples.
Vindicarre wrote:
Taskiss wrote:
It's not cheap at all, and from what I see of those scanners, I think they'll be a great deterrent to anyone trying to take dangerous material on a plane.
Nope, they're not cheap, and they're ineffective, unless you think not detecting Thermite is effective.
All they have to do is to is cause a terrorist to not target an airliner. Increasing the risk of being caught and thus failing their mission seems a logical deterrent.
Sort of. In point of fact it's possible to have better security and be less intrusive; the Israelis do it and I beleive we've discussed exactly that here. It exists not to give the illusion of security, because it does make security better than it would otherwise be if for no other reason that it discourages the incompetant and unimaginative. It exists to give security without offending the sensibilities of the "recial profiling!!!!" crowd, and for that reason is intrusive on everyone and less effective than it would otherwise be.
Gotta agree there, DE. The TSA regulation security does provide more than an illusion of security for the reasons you give. That's why I like "security theater", yeah, the really stupid will think something actually effective is happening, but those with even average intelligence know most of it's an act. I really do think much of what the TSA does is not aimed at actual terrorist interdiction, but at making John and Jane Q. Public think they're being protected: "Gosh if security makes me jump through all these unpleasant, intrusive and demeaning hoops, it's got to be for good reason, it's got to be for my own good." Well, that and stopping small-time drug/currency smugglers. A couple of days ago I mentioned to my wife that everyone's got to be put through this **** so that the "OMG Racial Profiling!" folks don't get all twisted up. Two guys who are private contractors with a passenger manifest and a bomb-sniffing dog would be massively more effective than the circus we've got now.
_________________ "Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
I realize that response is just a successful attempt at being an *** with what you think to be a cute rebuttal of a short statement. However, you should probably pick a less stupid statement on your part to defend.
Logic, not to mention recent events, disprove your statement.
I don't see you doing anything other than being disagreeable. No logical support for your assertion, no evidence... just a bald assertion.
You have nothing other than a desire to be disagreeable, and follow up by calling me an ***.
This response takes a certain kind of genius... You make an illogical statement that is completely undermined by recent events, no evidence to support the claim to counter the evidence stacked against it, and call my statement a bald assertion. Thumbs up for that prowess.
Quote:
Ladas wrote:
It does not such thing.
It's not even grammatically correct. "Fail" is too kind a way to describe your argument.
Clearly the thread is over. Taskiss won. He was able to spot a misspelled word, since spelling/grammar errors clearly invalidate an argument... oh wait, that would also invalidate 90% of his as well... guess we are back to a draw.
Success when it comes to security is not defined as always being 2+ steps behind the curve while never actually detecting anything of consequence, much less stopping a threat. And because of the policies enforced by TSA to satisfy the PC crowd that undermine effectiveness, the only chance they have to notch a win is against a truly stupid terrorist. Of course, in the case of the underwear bomber, they weren't even able to do that.
There have been no vector changes... air travel is still a viable and insecure target. The only changes you could claim are the means by which people are trying to smuggle devices onto the planes, but again, if the screening process is 2 steps behind and requires some other agency (or cold feet on the part of the terrorist) to detect, its a fail.
Last edited by Ladas on Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm Posts: 3455 Location: St. Louis, MO
Can we cease this argument? It's already been done.
The Simpsons wrote:
Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, sweetie. Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers. Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. Homer: I see. Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 232 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
