My conclusion about all of this is that the government wants people to be afraid. These are not real attempts to detect threats to flights. If anything, they're most interested in finding drugs and smuggled valuables. And this is not 'security theater'. The intent is to get everyone used to invasive, police-state style behavior.
I don't think it's so much that the government wants people to be afraid as it is CYA for the people in charge. Politicians want to claim that they've made things safer and none of them are brave enough to say: "Lets take things down a notch because they're ineffective."
It's similar to the state of "tough on crime" policies like 3 strikes and mandatory minimum sentences - even when proven ineffective no one wants to reverse the statutes for fear of being seen as weak on crime.
There certainly are people and organizations inside and outside the government who want people to be afraid. Martha Stout's "The Paranoia Switch"* looks at politicians who exploit this reaction and how the media contributed to the environment after 9/11. And the "surveillance-industrial" complex makes their money (and keeps their power) based on fear.
Not to mention the jobs issue. 9/11 resulted in an entirely new govt. agency being created. I doubt many politicians want to axe jobs given the current state of the economy.
well that is what I believe, democracy or any populist system is too easily run on the immediate carrot and stick. What i meant is that each year the hypotheses of conspiracy wackos seem to make better predictions than the last, even if they dont have the cause right.
It's not that governments want people scared, rather there's no incentive to avoid scaring the public. And so officials go ahead with their politically expedient security theater. The officials get the benefit of appearing to "do something" while the resulting inconvenience and "scare" never wash back on them.
You missed out on the other incentive - there's plenty of opportunities to sell "security" (ie comfort blankets) to scared people. Huge numbers of exDHS (and indeed ex generals) end up paid by security / military companies selling expensive stuff to the government. This is an active incentive to scare people.
Don't forget that even when not directly paid by defense contractors and the like, many government officials simply own stock in these and other corporations that stand to benefit for an increased need for security.
My take on it is that there is a large class of people who like to be afraid. It seems to give them a sense of purpose to have an implacable enemy to worry about. I wish they would worry about something more practical, though, like cancer.
Please, enough with the fear mongering and 1984 predictions of doom. What is happening is not even remotely close to what a police state is (please read up on some history of Eastern Europe) and saying that the "government wants us to be afraid" is right there with the worst unfounded conspiracy theories.
Let's give a hard time to the TSA and try to fix it, but let's not give into easy paranoia in the process.
I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best. I seem to read articles like this or articles advocating "Israelification" about once a week.
The thing that bothers me most is TSA has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to? Some bureaucratic process decides we can't wear shoes, bring water bottles, or (the latest new rule) can't bring more than 16 oz. of printer cartridges through a checkpoint.
There's no debate, partisan or otherwise; there's no angry constituents. Instead it is the TSA who decides these things, and no congressman can be anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security.
I'm also pretty sure TSA is part of the executive branch - so do we complain to Obama, then...?
Yes, the TSA is part of the Executive Branch, so it ultimately reports to Obama.
On a related note, you may wish to read Friedrich von Hayek's book, published in 1944, The Road To Serfdom. He covers many subjects in this book, but one of them is the danger that arises when the legislative branch delegates wholesale powers to the executive branch, or, as you say, "has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to?" Hayek worried about this separation of responsibility from power.
Hayek was, in part, looking at the British system, which is Parliamentary. They have some advantage there in that there is a clear separation between the head of state and the head of government. The USA is the only democracy that has ever tried to combine these two offices. The fact that no other country has ever imitated this aspect of American government (whereas most other aspects of the American Constitution have been imitated) says a lot about what a bad idea this is. In most democracies, the people are free to show their respect and veneration for the (usually powerless) head of state, and the people feel free to show scathing disrespect to the (powerful) head of government. In the USA, the people often have mixed emotions - when you criticize the head of government, you are also criticizing the head of state, so people typically pull their punches, and use language that is more respectful that what typically gets directed at a head of government in other democracies.
Hayek explains that the purpose of this "separation of responsibility from power" is to keep the policy-making uninfluenced by the political process, because it's impossible to create a policy that makes everyone happy.
We need a better way to reverse the separation when it's no longer useful, like in this TSA situation.
Congress has a couple of opportunities to step forward. The TSA wants a bunch of money in next year's budget for additional scanners, and with the small government attitude of the incoming Congress this is a great opportunity to stop them. Also, with Jason Chaffetz taking over the House subcommittee with oversight, and an general sense that TSA isn't real popular right now, we might see some more assertiveness in general. So #1 on the list of people to complain to is your Representative and Senators.
If you're a frequent flyer, call your airline. The airlines are a powerful lobbying force and we we need to get them more engaged. We've talked to them a couple times after driving/training (instead of flying) and one time we got a very sympathetic CSR who told us they're getting a lot of calls and very concerned about their business. Even if you haven't changed your travel plans yet, let them know that you're thinking about it. Reassure them you know it's not their fault, but ask them to weigh in with DHS and Congress to get things changed.
> I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best.
How large is the group of people who think it isn't wasted effort?
I recently had a conversation with a group of well-traveled, well-educated people who honestly believed that the new scanners and pat-downs are okay because they are designed for our own safety. The 4th Amendment was never a concern to them. When I brought it up, the answer was essentially that the end justified the means. Ben Franklin's famous words[1] did not convince them otherwise.
How are you (general) educating people about their rights?
The polls I've seen are that most people think it's wasted effort, although even so a lot don't see it as a big deal.
Usually I start by discussing effectiveness, or lack thereof -- so I've practiced explaining why they don't work and the actual risks in ways that everybody can understand.
Sometimes it's better to start with the safety risks (which is something I'm pretty credible on because I was on a National Academy of Sciences panel on dependable software). If it's a small-government person or fiscal conservative, I'll emphasize the cost. Or I'll discuss the dignity aspects, phrasing it in terms of the government's policy to take a naked picture of every traveler and choosing 3% of them to have their breasts and genitals groped.
It often takes several iterations; don't be frustrated. And of course there are plenty of people who just won't be convinced, in which case my usual strategy it to stay in their face enough that they consider changing their position just so I'll shut up about it already :-)
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I have the utmost respect for Ben Franklin, but this quote is not his best work. You might not be realizing it, but you are giving up liberty every day in exchange of something you find more valuable. Examples include signing up for credit, giving your address or social security in exchange of discounts, using a card at your grocery store or local mall, etc...
There is really nothing wrong with giving up some liberty just as long as 1) you're clear on what you're getting in exchange and 2) you agree that the deal is fair.
Also recommended reading are Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear" which provides a great mental framework for thinking about security (mainly IRL, but with applications in computing)
Kevin Drum made a point that stuck with me in defense of TSA procedures (which I am otherwise inclined to find odious.)
That is that the political and cultural environment is such right now that if a plane goes down due to terrorism, the country is going to go crazy and clamp down really hard on civil liberties in a truly damaging way. So we should prefer measures that, while intrusive, are generally pretty limited.
He argues that it is all well and good to say that "planes will go down but that's a small price to pay", but when it actually happens, life will be worse for everyone.
The idealist in me is disappointed to consider this argument, but it seems pretty realistic.
There's a flaw in Kevin's argument: the odious measures don't actually reduce the chance of a plane going around to terrorism. In fact by diverting resources from more effective security measures (e.g. focusing on cargo) they actually increase the chance.
If you take a look at his article, he makes a few basic arguments that at least some of the measures are targeted at keeping explosives off of planes and seem reasonably sensible.
For example, take the shoe check. Richard Reid came pretty close to blowing up a plane, but for a flight delay (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber) ). He kind of prominently proved out an approach, and since the goal of the TSA is pretty obviously not having a plane blow up, they instituted a visible countermeasure to that approach.
So: I don't agree that every measure instituted by the TSA is completely ineffectual, at least in theory.
That being said, you do raise a good point about the allocation of resources. I have to admit having much less sense of what is and isn't being done on the cargo side, if only because I only experience air travel as a passenger.
Do you know much more about cargo security? What measures would you institute?
Bruce Schneier's got a pithy hard-to-argue with summary: "Cargo that is loaded on to passenger planes should be subjected to the same level of security as passenger luggage. Cargo that is loaded onto cargo planes should be treated no differently from cargo loaded into ships, trains, trucks, and the trunks of cars."
The US should act more like Israel: accept that acts of terrorism will happen, don't publicize it, just clean it up and quietly go after the bad guys. And, most of all, don't act terrified--just go about business as usual.
The kinds of terrorism that Israel accepts are small-scale things, like car bombs and suicide bombers on busses. This attitude is necessary because the hostile population lives right next door, or even within their borders. Its low-grade, low-tech and hard to prevent. The terrorists in Israel see themselves as foot soldiers trying to evict an occupying power.
Israelis accept terrorism because they have to, not because of some superior character.
This isn't the kind of terrorism that the US is trying to prevent. For a terrorist attack to be successful, it has to be high-profile, because terrorist activities in the US are primarily fund-raisers or propaganda events for organizations that otherwise operate closer to their homelands. This kind of big-bang events are not going to be easy to accept, or not publicize.
According to this view, an accepting attitude is not going to help the US with big-bang terrorism. If anything, it might help the terrorists.
If we really want to be more accepting of terrorism in Israeli style, we need to start having e.g. more car bombings in metropolitan areas. I'm not so sure that's really what anybody wants.
I have a hard time putting into words what I feel is wrong with your statement. I guess exceptionalism and arrogance could be the terms - there's been one terrorist attack in the US in recent history and somehow it seems that's the most important thing in the world? There's nothing to learn from people who've been dealing with it for decades (I won't endorse many Israeli policies but that's beside the point)? I'd say that you can't appreciate how continuous terrorist attacks make one feel but on the other hand the government sure has been trying its hardest to make people feel as if that really were the case.
Probably doesn't make sense but I can't let the statement stand and a downvote isn't the right thing here.
With the wave of opposition to the TSA and legislative battles over the Internet Wiretapping bill, COICA, and the Patriot Act renewal, 2011 will go a long way to determining what kind of country we'll be. So articles like this are a great opportunity to ask yourself ...
Great suggestion. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head
- probably the most important: talk with your friends and family about the issues and try to get them beyond their fears.
- if you've got a few $ to spare, contributed to groups like EPIC (who's leading the lawsuit against the TSA scanners), EFF, BORDC, and ACLU.
- call your congressperson's office and let them know that these are important issues to the country, you expect them to take an active role, and it will be affecting how you vote in 2012.
- specifically on the TSA, adjust your habits to reduce (or even better eliminate) flying. when you do fly, take educational material with you to the airport, talk with people next to you in line, and opt out of the scanners.
- and track what's going on; there are likely to be some intense activism campaigns once Congress gets back into session, and plenty of opportunities to get involved online or off
"Plus, don’t let a plane take off if someone has checked in luggage but isn’t on board"
I'm pretty sure that is already the case, at least for international flights. I've been on numerous planes that got delayed because a passenger didn't show up and the airline had to unload their luggage.
Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses. From the social stigma given to those riding a bicycle without a helmet to the demand for cradle to grave protection by the government: we are not our forefathers.
