Thanks Amy

Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.

It all depends on who "your chance" applies to. If you happen to be a pilot or flight attendant, the odds change dramatically, since the population of crew members is waaaaay smaller than passengers.

"It all depends on who "your chance" applies to. If you happen to be a pilot or flight attendant, the odds change dramatically, since the population of crew members is waaaaay smaller than passengers."

That applies equally for *any* air disaster, regardless of cause.

Odds are pretty good that they have a greater chance of dying due to a mechanical failure than a terrorist attack.

Your argument doesn't, at all, dismiss the statistics involved.

"Horrifying" Sure, it actually was, for the people there. But the news coverage seems to be trying to jerk every last tear. Are modern journalists incapable of stepping back and looking at the big picture. Giving a bit of context. The same number of deaths and injuries happen every *hour* in car accidents, and yet we somehow avoid having a nervous breakdown every time we get in our cars.

In the America I would like to live in, we would give the victims quiet support behind the scenes, the perpetrators would be found hanging from lampposts, and we'd flip the bird at Islamic terrorism and go on with our lives.

Instead, the media is supporting the national desire to turn this into an emotional meltdown. It will be used to justify further nonsensical restrictions on whatever: backpacks? rental cars? The country will move one step closer to Orwell's 1984, where everything is monitored.

Risk analysis is something very few people are good at, and if they have ever experienced something, either first hand,or vicariously, they tend to believe the risk is greater than it actually is.

World media insures, that every terrorist act is front page news and people then believe that it is a real risk to the personally, having read about it so often.
It is the same with things like child abduction by strangers. Another event greatly feared, but also very uncommon.

There is no cure for this other than press blackouts which are not good for other reasons.

Terrorism is psychological warfare. The point is not the killing and the maiming, but to instil in the witnesses (which is everyone thanks to TV) fear of the terrorists, and a desire to give in to the terrorists demands. It is large scale blackmail.

The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

It is easy to feel scared and powerless in the wake of attacks like those at the Boston Marathon. But it also plays into the perpetrators' hands.

BRUCE SCHNEIER APR 15 2013, 10:15 PM ET

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-boston-marathon-bombing-keep-calm-and-carry-on/275014/

I don't feel scared and powerless, I feel homesick. OK, maybe a little powerless. I want to be home giving blood and hosting stranded runners and helping out.

Most of the runners who've been interviewed have been saying that this will NOT stop them from running next year.

And ya gotta give kudos to the 78-year-old guy, who was so close to the finish line! He was right there, almost to the finish apron, when the first explosion went off. He fell, and a race official helped him to the finish line. More here:

http://news.yahoo.com/78-old-runner-behind-boston-photo-004045310.html

Maybe I'm a bit paranoid or something, but I just posted this to my (real, actual people I've met) FB friends:

In the event that I or my family are ever victims of something like what happened at Sandy Hook or the Boston Marathon, please do not splash our faces all over TV & the internet.

Please do not support politicians or organizations that wish to "honor" me and/or my grieving family - be it with a ride on Air Force One, or special presence at public events.

I would never want my or my family's grief to be a national spectacle.

Moreover, loosing somebody to a high profile incident should not be "more special" than loosing somebody in a car accident, to cancer, or old age. Every death is a loss and every life has value. To me, this glorification of some survivors diminishes the losses of others.

While I commend the news-folk for bringing us news, it has become a national pastime to get "statements" from family and friends, and otherwise put them in the limelight.

You may disagree with me, for whatever reason, and I respect that. However, please know that in the unlikely event you'd ever need to know if I'd want you to talk to a guy with a camera about me or my family, the answer is a resounding NO.

The kid gets his face splashed across the internet. Sure, it's a bit freaky, reminds you about nut-jobs and mortality & all, but the news is NOT focusing on 1.) the people who jumped up and ran TOWARD the explosive areas to help the wounded 2.) the details of what happened or who might have done it.

This is, in part, because with news being live video and 24/7 now, they know nothing when they're reporting it, and they need SOMETHING to talk about... they can't exactly switch to the roller-skating dog segment with something like this going, but still...

I feel the same way, Shannon; however, there are some people who actually REVEL in the celebration of their loved ones' deaths. What pisses me off ROYALLY is politicians exploiting those deaths for their own agendas' gains.

I wouldn't want me or my family's grief to be a national spectacle or fodder for someone's political agenda. There are already enough out there who would. Too many, if ya ask me.

I wonder how our gov't is going to use this to shore up the "Patriot Act". Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist but this bombing was almost convient, given the growing populist movement to rescind the Patriot Act and get rid of the TSA.

My condolences and prayers for recovery to the victims.

"Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist"

Okay.

"Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist"

What Gog said.

I called bullshit on that line of thinking when people accused Bush of allowing 9/11, and I call bullshit now.

> Okay.

☑

> What Gog said.

☑

> In the event that I or my family are ever
> victims of something like what happened at
> Sandy Hook or the Boston Marathon, please do
> not splash our faces all over TV & the internet.
>
> Please do not support politicians or
> organizations that wish to "honor" me and/or my
> grieving family - be it with a ride on Air
> Force One, or special presence at public events.

☑

I saw a horrible photograph from this atrocity yesterday afternoon. There was a reasonable warning from the MSM outlet that published it, but I'll never forget the horror. I saw the inside of another living human being... One who didn't know the attack was coming to him, and who never authorized the rest of us to see the inside of his body.

Privacy can be oversold, but you have a right to the privacy of your physical interior, especially in a crisis like this.

And by "right," I don't mean the State should try to regulate such photography, I just mean I'll make a decent effort not to see it... I don't try to peek up women's skirts, either.

[taswcm Tim:] Odds are pretty good that they have a greater chance of dying due to a mechanical failure than a terrorist attack.

Your argument doesn't, at all, dismiss the statistics involved.

No, the odds aren't at all good that mechanical failure is more dangerous to passengers than a terrorist attack, whether in the US or worldwide.

Besides, you missed my point entirely — the measurement of risk depends on the population. Because the number of passengers flying in a year is more than three orders of magnitude larger than the number of aircrew flying in a year, there is a corresponding increase in risk for aircrew.

That means if the risk was one in 135,000 for one terrorist crash per week for the population at large, the risk to aircrew would be roughly on in 50. Do the math yourself: 730 million passengers in 2011, and roughly 300,000 pilots and flight attendants.

This difference in risk matters. How likely are you to go to work if your one-year chance of getting killed on the job is 1:50?

Excuse my rant about blythe statistics, because it really is beside the point.

[Scotticus:] Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist …
> [Gog:] Okay.
☑
> [Crid:] What Gog said.
☑

[a_r_g:] Are modern journalists incapable of stepping back and looking at the big picture. Giving a bit of context. The same number of deaths and injuries happen every *hour* in car accidents, and yet we somehow avoid having a nervous breakdown every time we get in our cars.

The dead and injured from someone who intentionally rams a car into a crowd of people are going to get a whole heck of a lot more attention than the same number succumbing to accidents. That is because we have at least some control over the latter, but none over the former.

> This difference in risk matters. How likely
> are you to go to work if your one-year chance
> of getting killed on the job is 1:50?

I'm pretty sure you're cheating the math in at least two ways.

First, "one terrorist crash per week" is a comically absurd baseline. Were that happening, an unprecedented global investigation & response would put an end to it by the second Sunday.

Second, I don't think the extrapolation from civilians to airline crew is anywhere near that clean, though I'd appreciate the thoughts of a professional statistician who doesn't have skin in the game.

Third, pro air crews take all kinds of crash risks that other people don't take. People who work on the docks of Long Beach are at much greater risk for Tsunami than are us landlubbers. I work in television, and risk having my soul scrambled by idiotic entertainment & news. Nobody sends ME flowers.....

Fourth, I'm far more worried for their exposure to cancer-inducing solar radiation. They could presumably be protected with lead shielding in the skin of the craft, which would increase its weight, complexity and cost tremendously... But we don't care about these crews that much, do we?

Fifth, I'm far more worried for their exposure to shitty travel food. (5A, expensive bottles of nose-itch wine.)

And so forth.

Risks also have to be comparative in order to see the true picture.

Are aircrews safer in a commercial plane, than driving their POVs back and forth to the airport?

You bet your candy ass they are.....

If they weren't, commercial airlines would not be a viable business.

It all depends on who "your chance" applies to. If you happen to be a pilot or flight attendant, the odds change dramatically, since the population of crew members is waaaaay smaller than passengers. --Jeff Guinn at April 15, 2013 10:17 PM

According to the BLS in 2011 4,609 people lost their lives on the job, a rate equal to 3.5 deaths for every 100,000 full-time workers. The most dangerous job was Trade, transportation, and utilities with 1,227 deaths. (Taxi and chauffeurs).

So effectively dying on the job is about 100K:3.5 chance. The chance for me to get my lifetime exposure to radiation by an errant X-ray/CAT scanner is probably in the 5M:1 chance. Radwaste's chance in probably in the 500K:1 just because of his job choice.

But if you are an airline pilot your chances to run into a hijacking attempt since 2001 are probably pretty small. Let's see ((18,000*365)*10) makes 65,700,000 individual flights. Let's say you do five flights a day four days a week for the last ten years ((5*4)*52)*10 comes out to 10,400 landings. So that means that you crewed 10400/65700000 flights which comes to 0.00015829528%. Or you as aircrew has a 100,000:1 chance to be hijacked.

So lets say there have been 1000 attempted hijackings and bombings including 9/11. That puts the number at 0.0000152207% attempted. Or about 1M:1.5.

I know my math is probably off, but think about the next time you think the TSA is a good idea.

Perspective:

We've decided this is an occasion to fly flags at half-staff...

...thus raising the act of a madman to the status of a lifetime of public service by a national leader.

Nice going, fearmongers.

[Crid:] First, "one terrorist crash per week" is a comically absurd baseline.

Yes it is. But regardless of the baseline, the risk to aircrew is roughly three orders of magnitude greater than the risk to passengers.

If we roll the rate back to one every five years, then the threat to aircrew from dying in a terrorist-induced crash is roughly the difference between screening and not screening for colon cancer.

Pretty much everyone agrees that screening is a good idea.

Anyway, my main point here is that the author, by not considering the different populations involved, takes a very restricted view of risk. (A nearly universal and unintentional mistake.)

I work in television, and risk having my soul scrambled by idiotic entertainment & news. Nobody sends ME flowers.....

For that, I got nothin.

Other than to admit that had Dante lived seven centuries later, Hell would have 8 circles.

[Isab:] Are aircrews safer in a commercial plane, than driving their POVs back and forth to the airport?

Yes, but the relatively small population of aircrew means that it only takes a couple accidents to turn that answer to "No."

> Yes, but the relatively small population of
> aircrew means that it only takes a couple
> accidents to turn that answer to "No."

Doctors and cops are at MUCH greater risk for needlesticks from junkie AIDS patients.

With all due respect, I don't think these positions (flight crews) need of coddling in this respect. The whole point is that joggers are at much greater risk, but there are probably a million of them who pounded their miles today.

Pretty much everyone agrees that screening is a good idea. -- Jeff Guinn at April 16, 2013 8:49 PM

Can I have whatever drugs you use to get to your fantasy land?

Anyway, my main point here is that the author, by not considering the different populations involved, takes a very restricted view of risk. (A nearly universal and unintentional mistake.) -- Jeff Guinn at April 16, 2013 8:49 PM

And your chance of dying while doing your job, as a U.S. citizen is 3.5 deaths for every 100,000 regardless of your job. Or .3 per 1M. Your odds of winning a Pick 3 boxed using 360 is 167:1.

Until you get the risk through your head, you won't understand why we think the TSA is a joke.

"Pretty much everyone agrees that screening is a good idea. -- Jeff Guinn at April 16, 2013 8:49 PM"

You have yet to demonstrate, in any credible fashion, that such screening actually mitigates or prevents any of these kind of catastrophic occurrences (hint, they don't).

It's true (in a strict sense) that aircraft personnel are 3rd in line for the most dangerous job (after fishers and loggers), but that's not as instructive as you might imagine.

The odds of a particular aircraft employee being involved in an incident isn't all that much more than a typical frequent flyer.

And, the odds of both are pretty low, overall (.3 to 1M, per Jim above, and other stats).

None of this justifies using outlying events (such as the Boston attack) as justification for treating everything as a potential threat, requiring some kind of massive governmental activity.

I missed that line.

And it was naughty.

[Jim P:] Can I have whatever drugs you use to get to your fantasy land?

[I:] ... then the threat to aircrew from dying in a terrorist-induced crash is roughly the difference between screening and not screening for colon cancer.

Pretty much everyone agrees that screening is a good idea.

Maybe I deserve a hit for ambiguous reference. When I said pretty much everyone agrees screening is a good idea, I meant screening for colon cancer.

And since this a post about risk, and how people react to it, I thought it on topic that the risk of death to the aircrew population from crashing one airliner every five years is the same as the risk of avoidable death from not undergoing cancer screening.

Which should raises, with respect to airport screening, an interesting question for an ethics seminar.

[Jim P:] And your chance of dying while doing your job, as a U.S. citizen is 3.5 deaths for every 100,000 regardless of your job.

Perhaps you should think about that sentence again, then retype it. Unless, of course, you really do mean to say that the risk of on the job death for a lumberjack is the same as an HR manager.

That would seem to require rather more explanation, especially considering the risk of dying on the job is about 12 times higher for men than women.

Which is yet another reason to not toss around risk statistics while ignoring population differences in risk profile.

[Crid:] With all due respect, I don't think these positions (flight crews) need of coddling in this respect.

The question of properly assessing risk, and what to do about it are two different things. I suspect most people would value the safety of NASCAR spectators over that of drivers, but it isn't easy to say why.

Also, in the realm of responses to risk, I think it makes a difference whether they are, to steal the Python's words, inherent in the system.

"Pretty much everyone agrees that screening is a good idea.

Maybe I deserve a hit for ambiguous reference. When I said pretty much everyone agrees screening is a good idea, I meant screening for colon cancer."

Kind of an easy mistake to make, given your history of what amounts to unflinching support of the TSA (maybe not as unfettered as that, but it does often seem to be the case).

Screening, in the sense of a doctor looking for indications of colon cancer (and so on) within a meaningfully identifiable set of potentially affected people (using a generally vetted set of tests), is clearly beneficial.

Screening, in the sense of the TSA, a collection of people mostly unqualified for work in the fast food industry, who got the idea to apply from a pizza box, whose idea of 'security' is to grope children and handicapped people, confiscate water bottles (and steal passengers property as a side industry), is another thing entirely.

I'm not opposed to actual airline security. The kind where there isn't some blind obeisance to an arbitrary set of useless rules. The kind where the agents have actual training and expertise in actually evaluating risk (you know, like you propose here) instead of treating everything as a risk (it isn't, you know).

Also, occupational risk is kind of different from the original topic presented here.

The risk from random acts of violence (like the Boston bombing), is all but non-existent to the average person (but sucks for the ones unlucky enough to be in the vicinity).

Most people getting into high risk occupations are generally aware of the risk, and take it as part of the package (and to use the NASCAR audience as an additional feature, they generally know that it's just a tad riskier than staying at home, but they do it anyway).

Perhaps you should think about that sentence again, then retype it. Unless, of course, you really do mean to say that the risk of on the job death for a lumberjack is the same as an HR manager. -- Jeff Guinn at April 17, 2013 7:35 PM

My apologies for not giving you the citations:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm
jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/09/24/americas-10-most-dangerous-jobs/

No, it isn't. But if you're a cab driver you have a more dangerous job than a lumberjack.

Industry               Deaths   Percent
Roadway incidents 
involving motorized
land vehicle           1,075        23   
Aircraft incidents       146         3

But the TSA makes you safer?

I must cop to some gross numerical buffoonery:

[I said:] That means if the risk was one in 135,000 for one terrorist crash per week for the population at large, the risk to aircrew would be roughly on in 50. Do the math yourself: 730 million passengers in 2011, and roughly 300,000 pilots and flight attendants.

That would be true only if there were 730E6 unique American passengers per year. Which, given there are only 330E6 Americans, is bollocks.

Since the aircrew population is far smaller than the traveling population, then the risk to aircrew is higher. How much? Impossible to say for sure, but 2,500 times is dead wrong.

[tashcm Tim:] Kind of an easy mistake to make, given your history of what amounts to unflinching support of the TSA.

You can't possibly have been reading my posts at all carefully.

To reiterate previous reiterations: Based upon personal experience, I believe that checkpoint screening is sufficiently effective to deter would-be suicide bombers. Further, based upon the nature of the problem and the numbers involved, there is no plausible alternative.

Screening, in the sense of a doctor looking for indications of colon cancer (and so on) within a meaningfully identifiable set of potentially affected people (using a generally vetted set of tests), is clearly beneficial.

How beneficial? Out of 100,000 people evenly distributed from 30 years old to 70 years old, how many lives will colonoscopies save over 10 years?

You can either take a guess, do some googlework to track down the various rates, or take my word for it.

The average ten year colon cancer rate is 0.88% for men (it is lower for women).

The rate of cancers cured by colonoscopies is 0.8%.

Since you have to actually have cancer to be cured of it, the effectiveness is .88% * .8%.

Taken over a population of 100,000 people and ten years, that amounts to 7 lives saved.

So the ethical question is this. Most people advocate getting themselves colonoscopies, despite all the time and indignities involved, to obtain a .07% chance of saving their own lives.

Considering that the risk to others (airline aircrew) is roughly the same if there are two losses due to bombings over a ten year period, how much passenger inconvenience is justifiable?

Put another way -- we know the answer when it is your skin in the game; but what about someone else's?

Most people getting into high risk occupations are generally aware of the risk, and take it as part of the package.

Yet surprisingly few of them, including race car drivers, prefer to face reasonably avoidable risk.

The tough question is what constitutes reasonable.

"I must cop to some gross buffoonery:"

Fixed that for you.

"You can't possibly have been reading my posts at all carefully."

Go ahead, tell us every instance where you clearly admitted that the TSA don't actually do anything of value (hint, they actually don't).

"To reiterate previous reiterations: Based upon personal experience, I believe that checkpoint screening is sufficiently effective to deter would-be suicide bombers. Further, based upon the nature of the problem and the numbers involved, there is no plausible alternative."

Nothing wrong with checkpoint screening, in principle.

Sexually molesting a five year old girl isn't, in any rational sense, an effective deterrent to a suicide bomber. Please, tell me you disagree with that.

"Yet surprisingly few of them, including race car drivers, prefer to face reasonably avoidable risk."

And, you know what? They don't have to.

It is still a truism that some behaviours are riskier than others, and that some people choose to do them. That doesn't mean that they're stupid and will actively court a risk they can easily avoid, it means that they accept that their chosen profession / pursuit includes a greater risk than sitting on a couch complaining about risk.

And, feel free to forget the specific percentages involved in something like screening for colon cancer. The argument has nothing to do with any particular chances of detection or recovery, merely that a single colon cancer screening (or colonoscopy) has far more evidence to support its effectiveness than does every single pat down performed by the TSA.

"To reiterate previous reiterations: Based upon personal experience, I believe that checkpoint screening is sufficiently effective to deter would-be suicide bombers. Further, based upon the nature of the problem and the numbers involved, there is no plausible alternative."

Have to add:

You're saying that you propose that the existing TSA style checkpoint screening actually achieves this goal, despite being utterly unable to completely prevent passage of guns, explosives, knives, and so on?

What is it that they're screening for then?

Water bottles? Breast milk? Pudding?

They *FAIL* nearly every single evaluation (done by actual trained security personnel) where they should be able to catch a real offense.

As a matter of fact, the TSA has *not* demonstrated any ability to prevent an actual potential incident.

They like to point to all of the shampoo bottles they've confiscated, though. I guess the terrorists are going to wash your hair to death (or make you die of hyponatremia from all those water bottles).

They like to call it 'voluntarily abandoned property', like they gave us a choice.

And they confiscate innocuous items, because they're on a list.

They're like, 'someone could blow up a plane with that water bottle.'

But then, they toss that bottle in a trash can, and treat it like a risk free item.

And this is the 'checkpoint screening' that you white knight?

One would think that an advocate of checkpoint screening would propose that the actual screening be performed by someone competent.

What's stopping someone from coming to the checkpoint with a bottle of something that will explode, having it confiscated, and then wreaking devastation on the security line?

If they really thought it was dangerous, they'd treat it as such. And if they don't treat it as such, there's no good reason for taking it from us.

The current crop of fast food rejects, and property thieves don't actually seem to qualify as legitimate screeners, do they?

And, feel free to forget the specific percentages involved in something like screening for colon cancer...

Perhaps you should feel free to address your ethics, rather than wave away the question.

Clearly, you feel it a good idea that once every ten years, you purge yourself, then go to a hospital to be anesthetized before being bent over and having a garden hose shoved up your fundament.

However, when it isn't your skin in the game, you don't want to be bothered with five seconds in a scanner when you fly.

Wonderful.

NB: there have been two successful attempts to get explosives on airplanes in the last ten years. You should ask yourself why there have been so few, and why those attempts didn't originate in the U.S.

As for despite being utterly unable to completely prevent passage of guns, explosives, knives, and so on ... , that is utter bollocks. You are falling prey to confirmation bias, where every instance of failure serves to confirm in your mind what you have already decided, without considering for a moment that the success rate is high enough to deter all attempts.

Based upon what the scanners have detected on me (a small piece of paper in one instance, and a thimble-sized chapstick in another), they are easily effective enough, often enough.

While I am reiterating, let me reiterate this: if you are so convinced that the scanners are an empty joke, then bring a plausible bomb mockup on board, and arrange to have some media meet you at the other end.

What? You don't wanna?

Oh, and one other thing. You rant at length against checkpoint screening, while saying [ ] about any alternative.

[ ] is not an alternative.

Hi, Jeff!

I see you're still claiming 100% effectiveness from a system that doesn't search or screen 100% of persons with access to the plane, doesn't screen 100% of the cargo, which hires criminals, and which routinely misses items in exercises.

And which considers you guilty and incompetent at self-defense, regardless of certification.

Had a chance to think about your backup systems yet - you know, that part of risk analysis which actually includes deliberate acts?

Or does your plane care now whether an engine failure was a duck or a SAM?

Good point, Jeff, no one should re-do the same test that the TSA failed earlier this year.

Feds. Fake bomb. TSA failure. Empty joke of an agency.

http://rt.com/usa/tsa-agent-newark-bomb-018/

Here former FBI Special Agent and JTTF expert rips the TSA - and its apologists - a new asshole.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/ex-fbi-man-chops-to-pieces-tsa.html

Mind you, this is from an experienced anti-terrorism expert, not some low-grade child-fingering laptop-stealing TSA mall cop.

[G_M_C_R:]

The moment I read this TSA has never, (and I invite them to prove me wrong), foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner. I realized there is no reason to take that guy seriously. (Yet despite this, I subjected myself to the complete waste of time required to plow through the rest of that ridiculous article.)

Why? Because foiling plots isn't the TSA's mission. Heck, he can't even get the basics right.

Good point, Jeff, no one should re-do the same test that the TSA failed earlier this year.

(I'm surprised -- no strike that, I'm not -- you haven't noticed a problem here. No doubt the screeners subconsciously profile people. And one of the notable differences between an inspector and a terrorist is that the former isn't worried about getting caught. And the other issue you have completely failed to take on board is that screening doesn't have to be perfect to be effective. Remember -- no strike that, you haven't figured it out in the first place -- the TSA' mission is deterrence.)

Anyway. Put your money where your mouth is.

[radwaste:] I see you're still claiming 100% effectiveness from ...

A claim backed up by history, BTW. How many bombs have gotten through the TSA?

Lemme see .... that would be, umm, none.

How many has the TSA found?

Lemme see .... that would be, umm, none.

Which means that TSA deterrence is 100% effective.

Unless, of course, the threat is a mirage. Oh, wait, what was the subject of this post?

Oh, and you wouldn't know the difference between risk analysis and a flattened cat, even given three guesses.

(No surprise there, given how many times you have made demonstrably incorrect statements on this subject -- remeber computer batteries? -- and your striking arithmetic naïveté.)

"Oh, and one other thing. You rant at length against checkpoint screening, while saying [ ] about any alternative.

[ ] is not an alternative."

How about you quit fellating the TSA, and while you're at it, you quit arguing with the dead zombie in your head.

Nowhere did I indicate any opposition to checkpoint screening (at least when done by competent personnel).

Screening, when done by people properly trained to evaluate actual risky behaviour, is entirely appropriate.

Screening, when defined as groping, sexual assault, and rape by instrumentation, performed by agents who don't have the intellectual capability to turn over a hamburger, is not appropriate, and *is* the textbook definition of what the TSA does, and is also a compelling reason to kick them to the curb.

You didn't actually answer my earlier query.

Tell me, in all honesty, that you actually think that sexually molesting a five year old, or a woman in a wheelchair, can be considered by any rational adult as a legitimate form of screening.

And, I'm not particularly opposed to the concept of the scanners. Where I have an issue is with the fact that the TSA and DHS seem entirely unwilling to present actual evidence that those self same scanners are actually and truly safe for the purposes they use them for.

And, why do they dissemble? If they're safe, it is merely the simple act of documenting that (with evidence), and the furor largely goes away.

By refusing to take that step, it appears that the equipment may actually be unsafe, but they're unwilling to admit it.

"[Jeff Guinn]: A claim backed up by history, BTW. How many bombs have gotten through the TSA?

Lemme see .... that would be, umm, none."

"[TSA]: Transportation Security Administration officials responded to Newark inspectors’ failure to find bombs planted on security testers this way: We tried, but it’s really hard."

You were saying?

Yes, they were security exercises and fake bombs, but the point pertains. They can't even do the job that they say they can do.

Feel free to show us your flattened cat, since your concept of risk analysis is utterly lacking.

For the idiot otherwise known as Jeff Guinn:

You know what?

I'm going to say it again, in a separate post, to either see you squirm or ignore it:

PLEASE!!!

Tell all of us woeful savages.

In what way does sexually molesting a five year old or a handicapped person protect us from the terrorists?

Go ahead, feel free to defend that behaviour.

"No doubt the screeners subconsciously profile people."

The M. Night Shyamalan School of Terrorist Deterrence has another graduate on the streets, I see.

[taswcmt:] How about you quit fellating the TSA, and while you're at it, you quit arguing with the dead zombie in your head.

For the idiot otherwise known as Jeff Guinn:

Uh oh. Anonymous Internet Tough Guy.

Tell me, in all honesty, that you actually think that sexually molesting a five year old, or a woman in a wheelchair, can be considered by any rational adult as a legitimate form of screening.

Well, in all honesty, since you provided me no link to either incident, then I have only your hysterical word as to what actually happened. Now, you might have summarized everything perfectly, in which case it is obvious no security purpose was served.

However, just in case there might be a little hyperbole buried in there, remember that the purpose of checkpoint screening is to establish a cordon sanitaire.

Therefore, if someone declines, for whatever reason, to go through a scanner, then, unless you prefer your cordon sanitaire to be full of holes, then screening must have some means to provide the same level of exclusion as a scanner.

I had thought that so bleeding obvious as to not require any elaboration.

Where I have an issue is with the fact that the TSA and DHS seem entirely unwilling to present actual evidence that those self same scanners are actually and truly safe for the purposes they use them for.

And, why do they dissemble? If they're safe, it is merely the simple act of documenting that (with evidence), and the furor largely goes away.

Please do us all, or me anyway, a favor and do a little googling on millimeter wave scanners (the ones now in airports).

Then ponder for a bit how worked up you are about the purported risks of body scanners of any type vs. the subject of this thread.

Calling you an idiot is simply an accurate observation, I don't subscribe to 'internet tough guy' magazine.

I don't have an issue with the millimeter wave machines, but you're dissembling when you say they're the only ones in airports at this time.

There are still a number (though they seem to be falling in disfavor and being removed) of backscatter scanners.

And it isn't even about the backscatter scanners themselves. It's about the idea that the TSA and DHS utterly refuse to disclose the kind of typical safety information that the government pretty much forces any other private industry using similar types of technology to do.

It's hubris, and it's wrong. If you can't see that, I really feel sorry for you.

"remember that the purpose of checkpoint screening is to establish a cordon sanitaire"

And you're claiming that what the TSA is doing actually accomplishes that? They're not security, they're security theatre. What they do *may* resemble security, if looked at by Mr Magoo, but it isn't security.

They can't actually catch bombs (except, perhaps, by accident), and they regularly miss knives and guns.

But, they'll happily confiscate a 4 oz bottle of water or pudding, and if you choose to forego the nude scanner, they'll stick a hand in your ass.

Tell me how any of that actually constitutes anything that even resembles a 'cordon sanitaire'.

It's already full of holes, and nothing that they're doing seems to be addressing that.

As for links to their poor bomb detection skills and child molestation, I figured (apparently incorrectly) that you might actually be well read enough to have stumbled upon the reports of that information, here and elsewhere.

But, since that appears to be granting you an awareness you seem to lack, here are some links for you (textified to not spam Amy's filters, remove the superfluous spaces):

Failure to detect bombs:

Not the only one, but relevant.

h ttp://w ww.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/12/tsa-misses-guns-bombs-tests/

Child molesting by the TSA:

h ttp://w ww.dailypaul.com/149217/video-tsa-molesting-3-year-old-child

h ttp://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=ARS770VpH7o

h ttp://s herriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/08/tsa-molest-small-boy-4-to-6-years-old.html

TSA hiring a priest defrocked for child molestation:

h ttp://w ww.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57441730-504083/priest-defrocked-for-child-sex-abuse-now-works-for-tsa-report-says/

TSA abusing disabled children:

h ttp://w ww.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/19/tsa-reportedly-detains-wheelchair-bound-3-year-old-girl-orders-parents-not-to-videotape-pat-down/

Those are the highlights, I can find a significant number of these, including one on the TSA blog itself attempting to defend the practice of molesting children in the name of security theatre.

Tell us again how that's actually helping us.

[Anonymous Internet Tough Guy:] And you're claiming that what the TSA is doing actually accomplishes that?

Put your money where your mouth is.

Really, if it is as bad as you say, then you have a moral obligation to highlight the flaws by carrying a mockup bomb sufficient to bring down an airplane onto a flight, and have media meet you at the other end when you emerge having comprehensively proven how worthless checkpoint screening is.

However, since you aren't going to do that, I rather suspect you don't believe what you say.

Regarding molesting 3-yr olds. I watched the video and, just as I suspected, you are far better at hyperole than reading comprehension. It that is "molestation" then the word has no meaning.

As for the 4-6 yr old boy? If you call that molestation, then what word do you use for doctor's exam?

And from the TSA hiring a defrocked priest:

The TSA says all its employees go through a criminal background check before they're hired, but because the allegations are so old, criminal charges were not filed. A spokesman said the Camden Diocese settled the first two lawsuits with Harkins' accusers, and that it had not yet seen the latest lawsuit.

There are 730 million screenings a year in the U.S. You knew that, right?

(Oh, BTW, browsers automatically fill in htt ... www. Have done for quite some time, actually.)

(Funny how mouthy you internet tough guys are. Even funnier how you internet tough guys never figure out it doesn't help what limited powers of persuasion you possess.)

It's funny how, when you get schooled, you change tactics and claim some form of moral authority.

"Really, if it is as bad as you say, then you have a moral obligation to highlight the flaws by carrying a mockup bomb sufficient to bring down an airplane onto a flight, and have media meet you at the other end when you emerge having comprehensively proven how worthless checkpoint screening is."

No, I don't.

The only moral obligation I have is the same one any intelligent, constititutionally aware, person has:

To question, stand up against, and to be a gadfly to any and all people who believe that it's more important to give power to government than it is to hold government accountable.

The onus is actually upon those of you who have the cock of the TSA in your throat.

The moral obligation that you must bear is that which demonstrates that something like the TSA (and only something like the TSA) is actually needed to accomplish the 'security' goal you covet.

You make light of the actions of the TSA (and your claim that they don't amount to much is bullshit, any person not employed by the TSA who engaged in any behaviour even similar to that described above would be considered sexual assault, and prosecuted as such).

The TSA is *not* above the law (or even above simple moral authority).

Why it is that you continue to treat them as some kind of positive agency is beyond the ken of anyone with more than two brain cells.

And, before you decide to claim some kind of, oh, my God, they want to let people blow up planes thought process, I'm not opposed to pre flight screening.

I'm opposed to the TSA, and the governmental security theatre bullshit that's in place to *look* like they're doing something, instead of them *actually* doing something.

So, feel free to stick your head in your ass and pretend that the government has nothing but your best interests in mind, all the while they continue to rape you in the ass (and you apparently enjoy it).

I'm opposed to the TSA, and the governmental security theatre bullshit that's in place to *look* like they're doing something, instead of them *actually* doing something.

And not one syllable about what you would do instead.

Nothing is not an option.

And yeah, you do. Especially because it is sooooo easy, and the payoff from comprehensively humiliating the TSA would be soooooo huge.

Give it a try. Tell us how it turns out.

Unless you are a just a bloviating internet tough guy.

I'm going with the latter.

--> Nothing is not an option.

Well, sometimes, it is. It isn't a fact that doing something is always the best alternative. There really are times where doing nothing, or at least, not trying to do everything, really is the best choice. Reflexively doing the wrong thing can do more harm than doing nothing.

While the poster ".... Tim?" might be a bit rabid on this subject, there's a nugget of truth in his rantings; primarily, that proper airline screening doesn't require demeaning the airline passengers.

Real security is about identifying actual threats, it's not about treating everybody as a threat.

A poster called 'Darth "anything"' calling someone rabid.

Wow, that's good (and I'll bet greedo shot first).

'And not one syllable about what you would do instead.'

Actually, several syllables, if you somehow managed to divert your attention from your ass to the subject at hand.

I've said, often enough, that I don't have an issue with screening done by people actually trained to evaluate and spot those who are actually a risk.

I simply don't accept that the TSA has that skill set.

Saying that the TSA is able to reliably spot someone who is actually a threat is like saying that a third grader is an expert at neurosurgery.

I'd have much less of an issue with the TSA if they were actually held accountable when they screwed up (and regardless of your perception, if what they do would qualify as a crime for an average citizen, it also qualifies as a crime for the TSA).

If the screeners aren't subject to the rules that the rest of us have to live by, then they have no moral authority whatsoever.

Some like to claim befehl ist befehl (orders are orders).

Doing wrong is *wrong*. Period, end of story.

Regardless of whether you do wrong on your own initiative, or because someone else tells you to.

It's entirely possible to have effective screening without violating the rights and integrity of the people you're screening.

And, if you're one of those who claim that you volunteer for that violation, because you choose to travel, you probably also think that it's okay for a babysitter to sexually assault your child, because you voluntarily chose to put your child in their care.