DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> How Effective is the TSA?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 41, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/21/2011 06:02:57 PM · #1
Here's a good overview from Vanity Fair.

R.
 12/21/2011 06:18:57 PM · #2
"To walk through an airport with Bruce Schneier is to see how much change a trillion dollars can wreak. So much inconvenience for so little benefit at such a staggering cost."

Loss of life notwithstanding, I don't think the 9/11 attacks themselves had a trillion dollar impact. Security theater, indeed.

eta: Great article! Thanks for sharing, Bear.

Message edited by author 2011-12-21 18:19:37.
 12/21/2011 06:37:53 PM · #3
One of the goals of 9/11 was to bankrupt the US.
 12/21/2011 06:54:42 PM · #4
Indeed it is an exceptionally good article. I cannot disagree with any of the conclusions. It's an outright wonder our government can't see it.
 12/21/2011 07:24:41 PM · #5
"Has the nation simply wasted a trillion dollars protecting itself against terror?"

Yes.... and anyone with a brain knows you cannot "fight" a concept. We actually spent the $ to create inefficiencies and hassle and loss of time and productivity. Amazing :-/
 12/21/2011 07:28:32 PM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:
Indeed it is an exceptionally good article. I cannot disagree with any of the conclusions. It's an outright wonder our government can't see it.


I'm actually quite sure they can. The problem is the we live in the United States of CYA. Who wants to be the guy who makes the sensible decision to cut down the things we do at airports and then have an attack go down? Who wants to be the doctor that doesn't order that expensive test that will pick up the very rare condition only to have a patient have that very rare condition?

There are some things that are just fundamental to our culture and that will only change with many generations (if they change at all).
 12/21/2011 08:25:07 PM · #7
On the day of 9/11 I was talking with an old hand in the intelligence trade who said "Life as we know it now, will never return." He was a wise old bird and I listened carefully.

Was he right? Has life actually changed? Hard to say, isn't it.

The one place it has changed is in air transportation. (do we take off our shoes to board a train, or a Greyhound?) Other gathering places like malls, stadiums or even bridges remain free for all.)

For a while, it was just silly. Even when deliberately wearing sandals, I was 'invited' to remove them. Security, you know. With plenty of FF miles, I often traveled business class. In Europe, metal knives with meals; on USA-bound flights, they were exchanged for plastic knives. Metal forks and spoons were still okay.

The first time I was body-searched was in a remote corner of India a long time ago. And then it was by a cloaked woman in a fully-enclosed booth. The second time? Some years back in the State of Hawaii on the island of Lanai - Lanai! - for heaven's sake. There on this expensive resort island on a discounted holiday, I vowed never to return or use that airline again.

How naive.

When full body searches became routine on USA flights, I vowed never to fly again until the situation changed.

I give full credit to those who must, and do, endure the indignities of long-distance travel. Even though I would love to attend a much anticipated scholastic anniversary, it's on the east coast while I'm on the west coast, so, to borrow a phrase: "heck no. I won't go."
 12/21/2011 08:30:04 PM · #8
I wouldn't mind a full body search (no cavity search)....but it's gotta be a female..
 12/21/2011 08:56:12 PM · #9
probably the most telling statement against why we even need all these security measures:

From an airplane-hijacking point of view, Schneier said, al-Qaeda had used up its luck. Passengers on the first three 9/11 flights didn’t resist their captors, because in the past the typical consequence of a plane seizure had been “a week in Havana.” When the people on the fourth hijacked plane learned by cell phone that the previous flights had been turned into airborne bombs, they attacked their attackers. The hijackers were forced to crash Flight 93 into a field. “No big plane will ever be taken that way again, because the passengers will fight back,” Schneier said. Events have borne him out. The instigators of the two most serious post-9/11 incidents involving airplanes— the “shoe bomber” in 2001 and the “underwear bomber” in 2009, both of whom managed to get onto an airplane with explosives—were subdued by angry passengers.
 12/21/2011 09:11:23 PM · #10
I guarantee...If I am on a hijacked plane...I will try my best to take that plane back....I might die trying but chances are I'm dead anyway
 12/21/2011 09:15:46 PM · #11
Originally posted by sfalice:
Was he right? Has life actually changed? Hard to say, isn't it.

The one place it has changed is in air transportation. (do we take off our shoes to board a train, or a Greyhound?) Other gathering places like malls, stadiums or even bridges remain free for all.)

The TSA was technically charged with "safeguarding" all transportation... trains... ports e.t.c. In the grand tradition of security theater and bolting the gate after the horse left... they only really pay attention to airports (look at their budget... a fraction goes elsewhere).

Life has changed for the worse and I agree, it will be a very long time before we get back to where we used to be if ever... I traveled a LOT on planes in the 80's and 90's and loved it... I now avoid it as much as possible.... 9/11 was certainly not the only event where the authoritarian types took over but it was a very large nail in the coffin and that is a lose to all of us.

Bottom line.... The terrorists won... "we" did what they could not imagine was possible... grid locked modern travel for a generation or more.
 12/21/2011 10:26:43 PM · #12
They're effective at microwaving passengers, molesting senior citizens and feeling up little girls. Is that the answer you were looking for?
 12/21/2011 11:09:01 PM · #13
I've never really dealt with them but the border has been tightened up between Canada and the US with mandatory passports, which ruined trades but I'm not complaining, it really helped out our own dollar with increased spending north of the border. Yes it hurts other industries but those industries are some that we can do without. Now if they could find a way to shutdown the plans for that mega pipeline, I'd be a happy camper. I'm sure that's a security threat somehow...
 12/22/2011 05:31:58 AM · #14
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
I've never really dealt with them but the border has been tightened up between Canada and the US with mandatory passports, which ruined trades but I'm not complaining, it really helped out our own dollar with increased spending north of the border. Yes it hurts other industries but those industries are some that we can do without. Now if they could find a way to shutdown the plans for that mega pipeline, I'd be a happy camper. I'm sure that's a security threat somehow...


...I will make a point of printing this and sending a copy to our finance minister. Who knew the answer was so simple.

Ray
 12/22/2011 06:12:52 AM · #15
It's interesting that so much money, worldwide, is spent on "airport security" when, statistically speaking, you are far, far more likely to die from heart disease, cancer, stroke, suicide, flu, accidental poisoning, car accident, complications from medical care, industrial accident, fire, flood, etcetera etcetera you get the idea. I read a report here in Australia that says more then fifty percent of the population feel "safer" due to "more stringent" airport security measures. I'd rather the government put the money where it can do greater good.
 12/22/2011 07:56:52 AM · #16
Originally posted by mike_311:
probably the most telling statement against why we even need all these security measures:

From an airplane-hijacking point of view, Schneier said, al-Qaeda had used up its luck. Passengers on the first three 9/11 flights didn’t resist their captors, because in the past the typical consequence of a plane seizure had been “a week in Havana.” When the people on the fourth hijacked plane learned by cell phone that the previous flights had been turned into airborne bombs, they attacked their attackers. The hijackers were forced to crash Flight 93 into a field. “No big plane will ever be taken that way again, because the passengers will fight back,” Schneier said. Events have borne him out. The instigators of the two most serious post-9/11 incidents involving airplanes— the “shoe bomber” in 2001 and the “underwear bomber” in 2009, both of whom managed to get onto an airplane with explosives—were subdued by angry passengers.

underwear bomb? really sorry but that is creative in a really scarey way.
 12/22/2011 09:57:23 AM · #17
If we are rational in the USA and Europe, we will stop playing defense. The cost for security and lost productivity is immense. Instead we need to quarantine those countries and areas of the world where their populations largely support our demise and avow that any terrorist act supported by them on us will be met with assured retaliation of an unbearable magnitude. In other words, kill 3,000 of us and we will kill 300,000 of you - indescriminately. The message they need to get is "Live in Peace, or Perish"

It certainly worked for Germany and Japan.
 12/22/2011 10:01:54 AM · #18
Originally posted by photodude:
If we are rational in the USA and Europe, we will stop playing defense. The cost for security and lost productivity is immense. Instead we need to quarantine those countries and areas of the world where their populations largely support our demise and avow that any terrorist act supported by them on us will be met with assured retaliation of an unbearable magnitude. In other words, kill 3,000 of us and we will kill 300,000 of you - indescriminately. The message they need to get is "Live in Peace, or Perish"

It certainly worked for Germany and Japan.


LOL
 12/22/2011 10:06:11 AM · #19
Originally posted by photodude:
If we are rational in the USA and Europe, we will stop playing defense. The cost for security and lost productivity is immense. Instead we need to quarantine those countries and areas of the world where their populations largely support our demise and avow that any terrorist act supported by them on us will be met with assured retaliation of an unbearable magnitude. In other words, kill 3,000 of us and we will kill 300,000 of you - indescriminately. The message they need to get is "Live in Peace, or Perish"

It certainly worked for Germany and Japan.

And the Indians of the plains and the buffalo as well.
 12/22/2011 10:10:24 AM · #20
yeah the terrorist need to live in terror
 12/22/2011 10:20:18 AM · #21
I blame the USA.

The US media hyped up 9/11, gave it a catchy nick name, and worked it for every viewer they could get.

The government is still capitalizing with the fear mongering, memorials, retrospectives, anniversaries... and the public eats it up as their flag-waving, patriotic, civic duty.

You made your bed, USA.

Can I get a chant going here?...

USA, USA, USA, USA !

Of course, wannabee countries like Canada have bought in as well, so thanks for spreading the joy.
 12/22/2011 10:22:51 AM · #22
I think we should blame Canada....I know SouthPark does
 12/22/2011 11:03:06 AM · #23
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think we should blame Canada....I know SouthPark does

I'm sure the Harper government would be willing to take the blame if there's any chance of being the USA's BFF.
 12/22/2011 11:34:35 AM · #24
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think we should blame Canada....I know SouthPark does

I'm sure the Harper government would be willing to take the blame if there's any chance of being the USA's BFF.


As long as Canada:

-Bends over

-Doesn't expect flowers in the morning...this is pure coyote lovin'
 12/22/2011 09:57:56 PM · #25
Originally posted by photodude:
If we are rational in the USA and Europe, we will stop playing defense. The cost for security and lost productivity is immense. Instead we need to quarantine those countries and areas of the world where their populations largely support our demise and avow that any terrorist act supported by them on us will be met with assured retaliation of an unbearable magnitude. In other words, kill 3,000 of us and we will kill 300,000 of you - indescriminately. The message they need to get is "Live in Peace, or Perish"

It certainly worked for Germany and Japan.


I am certain that the countries you speak of would love the economical growth experienced by the two countries you mentioned.

As for killing large numbers of people, well it might be best if you studied up a tad on that.

Now back to the original question.

Ray

Message edited by author 2011-12-22 22:03:40.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:18:03 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:18:03 AM EDT.