$11.8 billion dollars a year in tax money and airfare fees.
Since they were formed in November 2001, they’ve never stopped a terrorist plot, never prevented an airport attack, and never prevented an attacker from getting on an airplane. So literally everything they’ve ever taken in their two decades, including their budget, has been useless.
yeah but 11.8 billion dollars is useful. We’re talking about the useless act they put on wherein they steal our useless stuff for 11.8 Billion dollars.
Hmm, I interpreted “most useless” as applying to “confiscated” (as in, what is the thing that airport security most uselessly confiscated), but you’re right that it could modify “thing” (as in, what is the thing that was most useless which airport security confiscated). I think your way might be more grammatically correct, but I have heard both intended meanings in conversation.
Probably not. Before 2001, airport security screening was performed by privately-contracted security firms at each airport. The no-fly list (then called “no transport”) already existed and was maintained by the FAA in association with the FBI. There were still metal detectors and other elements of basic security screening which handled almost every reasonable threat, with one notable exception of course.
But the security vulnerabilities that were identified on 9/11–the hijackers’ ability to get small blades and pepper spray onto the plane, and the unlocked cockpit doors–were already patched by those private security agencies and by the FAA when air travel resumed on September 13. While better communication between those agencies, the airlines, the airports, the FAA, and the FBI was something that was sorely needed, establishing the TSA was far from the only way to do that; and putting them directly in charge of security at every airport was absolutely unnecessary.
But overall the threat of force is not an effective deterrent, especially for terrorism. When you think about it, those terrorists were planning to die on the plane; what do they care that the TSA threatened force against them? Any threat that they’d be stopped would only have changed their plans, not eliminated them.
Actually, all of the meaningful parts of the TSA (the security checkpoints with basic metal detectors, the no-fly list, and the in-flight security) were already in place before the TSA was established; they were just performed by independent security firms (contracted by each airport), by the FAA, and by the FBI.
Further, security and screening of almost every kind has a bias toward the attack vector of the most recent attack; it sucks across the board at coming up with new possible vectors. That means that, if the TSA had been in operation two months earlier, they likely wouldn’t have caught the terrorists’ weapons either (small blades and pepper spray), because they didn’t know to look for them then either.
The only reason that the TSA might’ve caught the September 11 hijackers is that the FBI and CIA individually had intelligence that, if put together, could’ve identified the hijackers early and added them to the FAA’s no-fly list; and the TSA might have facilitated better communication between those agencies.
Which means that the only arguable benefit that the TSA has brought to transportation security in America is coordination and standardization between entities and across airports throughout the US–which isn’t explicitly a part of the TSA’s mandate and could’ve been accomplished by a computer network.
It was mostly paid for by airlines and airports directly, and being decentralized it’s tough to tell, but estimates put it in the hundreds of millions range. Adjusted for inflation, it probably didn’t crack a single billion; so a 1-digit percentage of what it costs travelers and taxpayers today.
$11.8 billion dollars a year in tax money and airfare fees.
Since they were formed in November 2001, they’ve never stopped a terrorist plot, never prevented an airport attack, and never prevented an attacker from getting on an airplane. So literally everything they’ve ever taken in their two decades, including their budget, has been useless.
yeah but 11.8 billion dollars is useful. We’re talking about the useless act they put on wherein they steal our useless stuff for 11.8 Billion dollars.
Hmm, I interpreted “most useless” as applying to “confiscated” (as in, what is the thing that airport security most uselessly confiscated), but you’re right that it could modify “thing” (as in, what is the thing that was most useless which airport security confiscated). I think your way might be more grammatically correct, but I have heard both intended meanings in conversation.
Interesting ambiguity.
Would we know if they stopped a plot? Would it not at least be an imperfect deterrent for those considering but deciding against it?
If the TSA had ever prevented a terrorist plot you can be sure they’d be screaming about it at every opportunity.
Probably not. Before 2001, airport security screening was performed by privately-contracted security firms at each airport. The no-fly list (then called “no transport”) already existed and was maintained by the FAA in association with the FBI. There were still metal detectors and other elements of basic security screening which handled almost every reasonable threat, with one notable exception of course.
But the security vulnerabilities that were identified on 9/11–the hijackers’ ability to get small blades and pepper spray onto the plane, and the unlocked cockpit doors–were already patched by those private security agencies and by the FAA when air travel resumed on September 13. While better communication between those agencies, the airlines, the airports, the FAA, and the FBI was something that was sorely needed, establishing the TSA was far from the only way to do that; and putting them directly in charge of security at every airport was absolutely unnecessary.
But overall the threat of force is not an effective deterrent, especially for terrorism. When you think about it, those terrorists were planning to die on the plane; what do they care that the TSA threatened force against them? Any threat that they’d be stopped would only have changed their plans, not eliminated them.
deleted by creator
Actually, all of the meaningful parts of the TSA (the security checkpoints with basic metal detectors, the no-fly list, and the in-flight security) were already in place before the TSA was established; they were just performed by independent security firms (contracted by each airport), by the FAA, and by the FBI.
Further, security and screening of almost every kind has a bias toward the attack vector of the most recent attack; it sucks across the board at coming up with new possible vectors. That means that, if the TSA had been in operation two months earlier, they likely wouldn’t have caught the terrorists’ weapons either (small blades and pepper spray), because they didn’t know to look for them then either.
The only reason that the TSA might’ve caught the September 11 hijackers is that the FBI and CIA individually had intelligence that, if put together, could’ve identified the hijackers early and added them to the FAA’s no-fly list; and the TSA might have facilitated better communication between those agencies.
Which means that the only arguable benefit that the TSA has brought to transportation security in America is coordination and standardization between entities and across airports throughout the US–which isn’t explicitly a part of the TSA’s mandate and could’ve been accomplished by a computer network.
Presumably airport security cost something (whether funded by fares or taxes) before the TSA - do we know how it compares?
It was mostly paid for by airlines and airports directly, and being decentralized it’s tough to tell, but estimates put it in the hundreds of millions range. Adjusted for inflation, it probably didn’t crack a single billion; so a 1-digit percentage of what it costs travelers and taxpayers today.