This is a brief essay/op-ed I wrote and submitted to an online news and opinion site at the beginning of the year. They never responded to me so here it is for everyone..
Somewhere over Michigan, in the morning hours of Christmas Day last year, Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab, a despondent and disturbed young Nigerian Muslim, simultaneously ignited the
Yuletide Surprise hidden beneath his underwear along with the $40 billion the United States has spent
on preventing such an act since September 11, 2001.1
Bruce Schneier, whom CNN calls “a technologist who specializes in security”, claims that most
of the time-consuming rituals air travelers have to participate in are “security theater”, that is to
say “measures that make people feel more secure without doing anything to actually improve their
security.”2 I’d contend to call this practice for what it actually is: theater of the economically absurd.
But never fear when government is near! After having almost every single Federal agency shown
up by a 23-year-old guy hatching a terror plot right out of Bart Simpson’s imagination, the newest
and greatest solution is to throw more money into a demonstrably failing system. Nearly $1 billion
will be additionally appropriated for more security equipment, including full-body scanners.3
And if you considered Federal lackeys getting a good look at your family fishing tackle to be too
invasive, just check out the Transportation Security Administration’s revised directives for “thorough
pat-downs” of the leg and torso area. Sexy.
My apologies. In the interest of keeping people safe, one of the TSA’s first actions following the
incident on Christmas Day was to harass and threaten two law-abiding citizens for posting the
aforementioned directives on their weblogs. Apart from the fact that these banal security routines were
conveyed to over 10,000 persons internationally, their procedures are witnessed, first-hand, by millions
of travelers every day. Some threat to national security they could ever be.4
But if it’s not enough that, after all the expense put into quashing constitutional rights, we must assume
that hefty portions of the TSA’s funding is embezzled via bureaucratic malfeasance. In 2005, the
Washington Post reported that over $300 million had been “lost” to one single contractor hired by the
TSA to screen new employees. TSA costs included $125,400 the government spent renting security
equipment it could have bought for a few thousand dollars a piece.5 If ever there was a salient argument
for letting the airliners use private funding to service legitimate security needs, this would be point
number one.
And to top it all off, the failings of the current state-sponsored security model are not merely wastes
of government time and government money; they are directly wastes of ours. Robert Poole, director
of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, calculates that the additional time spent waiting in
airports due to security procedures has cost the United States about $8 billion a year since Sept. 11,
2001. Poole admits he is probably under-estimating.6
All economics arguments aside, there is one point I am sure most of us can agree upon: There is
no defense against a determined lunatic. All the airport security you and I witness and participate
in is nothing more than a defense against a “movie-plot threat”, says Bruce Schneier. “The best
defenses against terrorism are largely invisible: investigation, intelligence, and emergency response.”7
Unfortunately, invisible measures don’t service the publicity needs of politicians. “Security theater”
will just have to do and the utilizers of air transportation will simply have to put up with the invasive
screening, the unconstitutional searches, the long lines and the expense.
How much safer are we for it? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab shows us that, nearly 9 years after the
September 11 attacks, we’re not much safer at all. Experts admit that they can’t even secure the long
airport security lines, where the most people will congregate, let alone the actual airliners from
potential attacks.8
And yet, driving on the highway, even using inner city buses, proves to be far more fatal than air terror
or air travel ever could be.9 Human beings can manage those risks, so why is there something about
airplanes that inspires a paranoia within us that is so potent we’ll abandon our rights, our liberty, our
decency and our wealth for the illusion of protection? It can’t be the airplane food…
If you want to know how I think we can make air safety cheaper and more effective, I’m with Bruce
Schneier on this one: “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and
the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.”10
There’s yet to be a terror attack on an Amtrak train and they let everyone aboard without searches or
bureaucracy. Heck, you could even bring a gun on if you wanted to. Perhaps the government and the
air safety industry could learn a thing or two from Amtrak, and save a couple billion dollars in the
process.
Something About Airplanes
Billions of dollars and mountains of bureaucracy later, airport security is more smoke and mirrors than proactive defense.
Somewhere over Michigan, in the morning hours of Christmas Day last year, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a despondent and disturbed young Nigerian Muslim, simultaneously ignited the Yuletide Surprise hidden beneath his underwear along with the $40 billion the United States has spent on preventing such an act since September 11, 2001.1
Bruce Schneier, whom CNN calls “a technologist who specializes in security”, claims that most of the time-consuming rituals air travelers have to participate in are “security theater”, that is to say “measures that make people feel more secure without doing anything to actually improve their security.”2 I’d contend to call this practice for what it actually is: theater of the economically absurd.
But never fear when government is near! After having almost every single Federal agency shown up by a 23-year-old guy hatching a terror plot right out of Bart Simpson’s imagination, the newest and greatest solution is to throw more money into a demonstrably failing system. Nearly $1 billion will be additionally appropriated for more security equipment, including full-body scanners.3
And if you considered Federal lackeys getting a good look at your family fishing tackle to be too invasive, just check out the Transportation Security Administration’s revised directives for “thorough pat-downs” of the leg and torso area. Sexy.
My apologies. In the interest of keeping people safe, one of the TSA’s first actions following the incident on Christmas Day was to harass and threaten two law-abiding citizens for posting the aforementioned directives on their weblogs. Apart from the fact that these banal security routines were conveyed to over 10,000 persons internationally, their procedures are witnessed, first-hand, by millions of travelers every day. Some threat to national security they could ever be.4
But if it’s not enough that, after all the expense put into quashing constitutional rights, we must assume that hefty portions of the TSA’s funding is embezzled via bureaucratic malfeasance. In 2005, the Washington Post reported that over $300 million had been “lost” to one single contractor hired by the TSA to screen new employees. TSA costs included $125,400 the government spent renting security equipment it could have bought for a few thousand dollars a piece.5 If ever there was a salient argument for letting the airliners use private funding to service legitimate security needs, this would be point number one.
And to top it all off, the failings of the current state-sponsored security model are not merely wastes of government time and government money; they are directly wastes of ours. Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, calculates that the additional time spent waiting in airports due to security procedures has cost the United States about $8 billion a year since Sept. 11, 2001. Poole admits he is probably under-estimating.6
All economics arguments aside, there is one point I am sure most of us can agree upon: There is no defense against a determined lunatic. All the airport security you and I witness and participate in is nothing more than a defense against a “movie-plot threat”, says Bruce Schneier. “The best defenses against terrorism are largely invisible: investigation, intelligence, and emergency response.”7
Unfortunately, invisible measures don’t service the publicity needs of politicians. “Security theater” will just have to do and the utilizers of air transportation will simply have to put up with the invasive screening, the unconstitutional searches, the long lines and the expense.
How much safer are we for it? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab shows us that, nearly 9 years after the September 11 attacks, we’re not much safer at all. Experts admit that they can’t even secure the long airport security lines, where the most people will congregate, let alone the actual airliners from potential attacks.8
And yet, driving on the highway, even using inner city buses, proves to be far more fatal than air terror or air travel ever could be.9 Human beings can manage those risks, so why is there something about airplanes that inspires a paranoia within us that is so potent we’ll abandon our rights, our liberty, our decency and our wealth for the illusion of protection? It can’t be the airplane food…
If you want to know how I think we can make air safety cheaper and more effective, I’m with Bruce Schneier on this one: “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.”10
There’s yet to be a terror attack on an Amtrak train and they let everyone aboard without searches or bureaucracy. Heck, you could even bring a gun on if you wanted to. Perhaps the government and the air safety industry could learn a thing or two from Amtrak, and save a couple billion dollars in the process.