I don’t agree that “airport security is theater” . . . I do agree that there are many things that are done for show, but not the entirety of airport security.
And given the ability to create a firearm using 3D printing . . . metal detectors aren’t going to be enough.
Airport security slows you down so you spend more time in line. Your agitation because your time is “wasted” looks different from the agitation of someone heading off to murder/suicide on a plane. The screening targets the amateurs, which most terrorists are.
I guess I’m just confused by your post.
You said airport security is NOT entirely theater… and then brought up 9/11.
Surely you’re not claiming that 9/11 is an airport security success story?
I don’t think anyone disagrees that there can be negative consequences to letting evil actors carry weapons on airplanes, BTW. We’re saying that most airport security measures do absolutely positively NOTHING to prevent it from happening.
Is your contention that they’re just deliberately making us jump through hoops and get annoyed so that they can more easily distinguish annoyed non-terrorists from annoyed terrorists because our facial expressions are different at that point in time?
I think the existence of airport security prevents a lot of plans from ever being developed. 9/11 happened in part due to the holes that existed in security at the time. Of course, once it was realized that the hijackers were also suicide bombers the plans fell apart, and future attacks looked for new holes.
The security required to prevent an attack is lower than the security required to eliminate 100% of something from getting on an airplane.
Btw, i think the chance of bombings here is so low that you could also argue none of it is necessary. We don’t have bombings on other mass transit systems, but we do have assaults and other things. One silent benefit of security is that once you are through the airport gate, you are in an extremely safe area.
How about the fact that the level of security in place on and before September 11, 2001 was a contributing factor to why the 9/11 attacks were so “successful” from the Jihadist’s perspective?
And the tightening of that security has done a lot to prevent a similar level of attack from taking place? If this latter is actually true, then current airport security isn’t (all) theater.
Note that I’m not disagreeing with the idea that there are a lot of aspects of current security measures that are overkill and that some are for theater to add to the perception of a safe (safer?) environment.
I do believe that a lot of plans are deterred even with the theatrical aspects of current security.
And I totally agree that most people do not acknowledge the value of deterrence as an effective security measure. I think this is due to the fact that it’s not easily seen and more difficult to assess.
And while the measures that prevent/mitigate the scale of the impact of the 9/11 attacks were done “in the cockpit” . . . a lot of the theater of current security measure will most certainly deter the amateur attackers (especially those who want “to go out in a blaze of glory”) and increases personal safety of flight crews and passengers.
I think that’s more due to the cost of getting through security - namely buying a plane ticket - being a deterrent to your average thug than anything TSA is doing.
There weren’t a material number of assaults in airports pre-9/11 either.
Ok, but nothing TSA is currently doing - other than checking for knives - is currently reducing a terrorist’s chances of success.
It’s not.
Before changes to security after 9/11, you didn’t need a ticket to go to the gate.
That varied by airport. San Diego required tickets to get to the gate basically my entire life, O’Hare didn’t at all pre-9/11.
True. Maybe it’s more the inconvenience of getting to the airport than anything else. Airports are usually not very close to the city. Thugs tend to operate in familiar areas close to home.
That’s true.
I can only assume then there is a wide variation of bathroom assault statistics at airports based on the local laws on regarding bathroom use for trans individuals.
/red font?
Hey, the TSA stops at least 5% of weapons according to the FBI, and up to 30% according to some generous studies.
I’ve accidentally carried a Swiss Army knife onto a plane. Since I was going through Customs when I landed I threw it away in the airplane. I don’t remember, I probably had time to shove it in my checked bag after landing but regardless the whole thing made me nervous and for a $25 knife I wasn’t risking it.
If this is true, then people have a legitimate gripe about the lying. TSA is forever pushing the narrative “You mustn’t take X onboard, because it’s dangerous”, while the reality is “We forbid you to take X through security, because we want to piss you off so we can judge whether you’re a criminal by your facial expression”.
Part of me wants to make terrorist-y facial expressions just to mess with them. But I know TSA has the power to make someone’s life miserable (or at least make him miss his flight) even if he hasn’t broken any laws.
Now, I’m interested in what that would look like. I mean, it could be a “Hijack” (Idris Elba series) situation which if you don’t get on that plane your loved ones will die. So, reaction would be fear for their lives.
Me, too. It’s all about maintaining plausible deniability, right? There are any number of reasons a person could appear agitated, so if you stick to your Fifth Amendment rights, they probably can’t prove one particular reason.