While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did
not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person
carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack.
These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My
something trumps your a
lternative hypothesis - even if my
something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it?
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species
vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with
vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour
vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
