242
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
242 points (86.2% liked)
Hacker News
4891 readers
639 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Are we pretending the TSA keeps us safe now?
We had hundreds of hijackings in the 20th century, culminating in 9/11, the first time an airplane was used as a weapon of mass destruction. Since 9/11, following the subsequent addition of TSA and stronger protocols, we haven't had any more hijackings.
25 years of success would suggest that TSA, or at least the enhanced security protocols that included TSA, combined with better focused intelligence, has worked to eliminate the threat of hijacking, more or less.
The last US hijacking was in 1990, when a hijacker claimed to have a bomb but it turned out later it was a fake. Before that, in 1987 a man threatened to start a fire using a cigarette lighter and a packet of chemicals. There was one in 1983, and a couple in 1980, but the majority of them happened prior to 1973 when basic security checkpoints were instituted.
There were no notable hijackings in the US between 1990 and 2001.
The reason 9/11 was so successful is because people expected it to be like historical scenarios where the hijackers make a little threat, get the plane diverted, and no one dies. Back then, a hijacking was seen as something like an unruly flier today - a little scary, but not too much more than an inconvenience.
After 9/11, people realized that planes could be used as guided missiles by dedicated actors. That the goal is no longer to get attention, but to plow a jet loaded with fuel into any structure in the US. Everyone realized that allowing an attacker to take control of the aircraft was a potential death sentence to everyone on board, not to mention any targets on the ground.
To counter this threat, they instituted two positive reforms: bulletproof, locking cockpit doors, and armed air marshals. No longer would pilots respond to a threat in the cabin of the aircraft, allowing the attackers to control the plane directly or indirectly, and an air marshal on board can eliminate any actual threat to passengers.
Hijackings didn’t stop in response to TSA security theater. There was already a drastic reduction after basic and minimal security measures were introduced at the airports in 1973, and by the 1980s they were super uncommon and after 1990 they had already vanished.
TSA security theater also didn’t stop casual hijackings, as many previous hijacking’s used the threat of fake bombs or fires, something that enhanced security will do nothing to prevent. Instead, it was the stakes of hijacking that escalated, meaning any casual threat is treated as the worst case scenario and dealt with as such. Any would-be hijacker knows that they can’t get to the cockpit, and even if no air marshal is on board or thinks that they can subdue them, knows that the passengers will assume they’re all going to die and attack them.
Ironically, TSA security theater doesn’t actually do what it was intended to do - stop another 9/11 style attack. There are so many instances of security failing to do its job; their failure rates should be absolutely terrifying to anyone who believes they’re actually protecting us from hijackings as firearms and knives frequently make their way onto planes. All it does is inconvenience travelers and make simpletons feel safer, while costing us civil liberties and taxpayer dollars.
The actual, effective reforms were cheap and invisible. The TSA screening at the airports is a bullshit waste of time and money. If anyone wanted to do a mass casualty event with a bomb, they’d get to the middle of a crowded TSA security line and detonate rather than try to board a plane.
Especially now that the lines are 6 hours long here.
The actual reform came a little earlier. The actual reform was "Let's Roll".
Prior to Flight 93, the assumption was that the visible hijackers had a hidden accomplice with a bomb. Hollywood told us that anyone trying to be a "hero" would get everyone killed. That cultural mindset was entirely responsible for 9/11.
"Let's Roll" was the attitude change on Flight 93, when they realized there was something worse than getting all the passengers killed. "Let's Roll" is the idea that we are each personally responsible for providing our own security and protecting those around us. "Let's Roll" is the recognition that appeasement is bullshit.
Air marshals are just more security theater. They aren't likely to be present when needed, and they certainly can't be trusted to "eliminate any actual threat to passengers".
Taking bets its because airplanes have much higher security such as locked cabin doors with limited access. But sure its the guy strip searching you for having 5 ounces of water.
How do you figure that a locked cabin door will stop a hijacking? Sure, they can't fly the plane, but the only hijacking that I recall that needed that was 9/11.
All he needs to do is let the pilot know that he will start killing passengers, until he agrees to go wherever they want to go. But that's not what hijackers even want these days. They want to blow up the plane and kill everybody, and that's easy. All you need is a lithium laptop battery, pierce it, and you'll have an unquenchable 2000°C fire very quickly. How many laptop batteries are on a plane? Gather them up, get them burning, and that plane is going down. That's a successful hijacking, and they didn't even bother to try to get into the cockpit.
TSA/Airport security exists solely to discourage the potential hijacker from trying it at all, and choosing an easier, softer target, and it has been very successful in that objective. FACT, down votes be damned.
Your example of a threat that TSA can prevent is to light laptop batteries on fire, but that is something that TSA does not stop you from doing. Half the people on any flight will have a laptop or tablet out.
You'd still have to control the passengers, and that requires threats and violence. The batteries just bring down the plane, they aren't the controlling threat.
And those laptop that are out? More batteries, hand them over.
Dude you are arguing against yourself... the scenario you described would not, at all, be stopped by current TSA protocols
Moreover, the bad TV show example about the highjackers threatening the pilots safely locked in the cabin... why would the pilots open or obey when the end result is crashing the plane?
Genius logic there
The reason hijackings where not taken seriously until 9/11 was because it was very rare for hijackers to harm passengers.
You litterally said it yourself. 9/11 changed the fact hijackers would use large aircraft as weapons of mass destruction. Preventing control makes them useless for that.
That won't do it. Thanks to an accident back in the 90's (I think) when an entire cargo container full of laptop batteries burned up in the cargo hold, airplanes are built to resist these kinds of attacks now. There are also limits already on the size of batteries that you can bring on a flight, specifically to prevent someone from collecting a bunch of them and starting a fire. When planes crashes from a cargo fire, it's typically because the crew is unconscious or disoriented and unable to fly the airplane, despite it still being capable of flight.
TL:DR - the passengers can't bring enough batteries on a plane to take it down.
You realize other countries that don't have TSA don't have hijackings right?
Don't use logic, it might hurt their brain.
... There still are safety checks in the airport.
Ad absurdum: There are way fewer murders in Dortmund than LA even through Dortmund doesn't have the LAPD. Clearly we must remove all LAPD staff from LA to eliminate the murders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
The 9/11 hijackers were able to take over aircraft with ceramic knives and shit because they were playing by new rules - the passengers expected to be able to survive if they just cooperated because thats how past hijackings had worked.
If anyone tries to take over a plane with a fucking knife post 9/11 they're going to get the shit beaten out of them. That is by far the primary reason for the decline in hijackings - passengers no longer have any reasonable expectation of survival through cooperation.
The only way to overwhelm all the passengers is with guns and simple pre-9/11 metal detectors were sufficient to detect those.
You should do a little reading on how many tests TSA absolutely fails. And anecdotally, I've read countless folks who accidentally took prohibited items on board.
TSA is pure security theatre.
I know all about it, but you still can't argue with Hundreds of Hijackings pre-9/11 vs Zero Hijackings post-9/11.
What people miss is that the TSA you see at the airports absolutely is Security Theater, and that's by design. It's meant to discourage the amateur terrorist while they are still in the planning stage. That maniac may go off and shoot up a school, or a movie theater, or a church, or some other softer target, but TSA was successful in keeping them from doing it on a plane.
Deterrence is a common goal in law enforcement. It's literally the entire objective of Speed Limit signs. It's not always about catching people red-handed in the midst of a crime. People commit less crime when they consider the known consequences, and deterrence is a primary objective of the elaborate airport security, no matter how accurate it is in catching threats.
As disappointing as all the reports are of TSA failures, they must be overstated, because nobody has been pulling guns, knives, or bombs on any planes since 9/11 (except the shoe and underwear bombers, who got their asses kicked by passengers).
And for the rare Professional Terrorist, that becomes a joint operation between Intelligence agencies, and TSA. If the system breaks down, and the guy gets on the plane with the weapon, then it is up to the passengers to take action, which they enthusiastically did in the cases of the shoe and underwear bombers.
So I know it's fashionable to bag on TSA, but if you look at the actual facts, and the actual results, it's a simple fact that the Airline Security System we have, which completely reversed the serious hijacking problem that America was having, has been successful.
Wanna know the main reason hijackings stopped? United 93.
Before 9/11 when most hijackers were basically seeking transportation to somewhere for asylum (essentially), they generally wanted the plane to make it there and survive.
9/11 used the planes as weapons, and everyone learned that if you were hijacked, you needed to go all-out to take the plane back over so you didn't aall die.
There's your deterrance. Little to do with the TSA and everything to do with what changed on that day.
Absolutely a major factor, and you can add to that the passenger response to attempts by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. But that's the last line of defense, and as 93 taught us it still went down, and killed everybody. Locked cockpits doors and passenger response may help against a hijacker who intends to survive the encounter, but these days, many of them are suicidal, and 93's fate is their exact objective.
And passenger response is easy to avoid anyway. The shoe and underwear bombers' only mistake was trying to do it on front of other passengers, who noticed. If they had just gone into the restroom, both of those planes would have crashed. They were saved as much by hijacker stupidity as passenger response.
Nothing that heavy should be flying through sky, they are basically up there by magic, so bringing down a plane is remarkably easy. A lithium laptop battery can supply a super hot fire that is almost inextinguishable. How many laptops are on board? One would be enough of a threat, but get them all burning, place them in strategic spots near emergency doors, wings, drop them in the cargo hold, etc. and that plane won't last long.
Bottom line: it's a good idea to keep hijackers off the plane in the first place, rather than leaving it to the passengers to save the day. Look around your workplace. Are THESE the people you think could save your life during a hijacking?
Enhanced security was a good idea, but you just have to fly internationally to see that TSA is such a fuck-up. Unclear instructions, napoleon complexes, arbitrary rules that make no sense. It's stuff like that, that makes it security theater. Every foreign airport I've flown through has baggage checks and some sort of body scanning. The other rules are clearly posted and not arbitrary. Like come on peanut butter is not a liquid.
And don't even get me started on customs/Border control. I've entered foreign countries with less questions than reentering my home country. It's a mess
All these stories about TSA are foreign to me. I've never witnessed anything other than resigned professionalism from them. They don't look they're having a great time at work, but I've chalked at least half of that up to training, and the other half is just basic exhaustion.
Like people who complain about noisy theaters. I've never really experienced that, and I go to high volume theaters.
When people start hollering about how badly everyone is treating them, I start to wonder how they were behaving.
Good job you've been lucky. I'd say 9/10 times its fine. The issue is the 1 time it's not they have an absurd amount of power over you and can absolutely ruin your day over something petty.
Some agents absolutely take that exhaustion out on travelers.
And to your movie theater example same thing. The vast majority of times its fine, but once again I've had a few times where a group sat behind me that wanted to talk to each other and not watch the movie. It's annoying, but rare.
Did you consider the possibility that people complain about the times that are bad and not the times that are good?
Also you only addressed 1 point of my comment the attitude of TSA, not the systemic issues that make the system asinine
I didn't address any more of you're post because I've been having this argument for two days, and I'm tired of it.
Essentially, everybody wants to get rid of TSA because they aren't effective, and NOBODY has made any suggestion at all about what would be a better alternative. Whatever the reason is, the current system has worked well for 25 years, far better than any other previous 25 years period, and nobody can agree which elements are the most important, so I'm for keeping the whole thing as it is.
Besides, what would a new system look like? When all was said and done, it would probably end up looking pretty close to what we have now, except the agents would have to be NICER. Truthfully, that seems to be the biggest objection these babies have about TSA.
And one final thing: How excited are you going to be to start flying in a system that doesn't bother to screen and passengers or bags, because the cockpit door is locked, so everybody is perfectly safe?
I mean at that point you really aren't obligated to engage.
Like you said. Basically TSA, just standardized across airports with a common sense streamlining of the rules. Like if I can take down a plane with a full sized tube of toothpaste you can do it with 5 mini tubes of toothpaste that fit in a quart sized bag.
Honestly like I said just model it off of most EU countries' standards.
Yes, a civil society should hold our government workers to standard. They can act a way that would get any average retail worker fired. Kinda weird. To be clear I'm not saying they need to be subservient to the flier, just polite, decent, and professional. As I expect of all government workers.
I'm not and never even advocated for a system like that. Maybe someone else in this thread did, but I didn't because it's a monumentally bad idea.
You're the first person in two days to offer ANY alternative beyond "Get rid of TSA because they suck!" and your suggestion is, like I said, basically the same as now, except they're forced to smile and kiss our asses. That should be gruesome.
I was hoping someone would have suggested some sort of ticket system, where you check in, and you get a number, and groups of people get called for screening. It may require a short wait, but it won't be an hour+ like it can often be on a good day. Instead, people can sit, nap, walk around, eat, etc. It wouldn't change anything about the screening process itself, but it would greatly reduce the wait, which is one of the worst problems associated with security screening.
My DMV implemented a system like that, and now going to the DMV is breeze. I've never been in there longer than 30 minutes. We could do something like that at Airport Security. We wouldn't even have to do it at the airports all the time, just at times when things get crazy, like holiday weeks, or like, y'know, now.
But no, it's all been "TSA isn't nice enough to me, well not me, it's never happened to me, but I hear other people say it, and I read one time that someone smuggled a nail file on board, and I'd rather fly with no screening because everybody in the world is nicer than TSA, because they suck!"
I'm sorry dude I tried to be reasonable and give the benefit of the doubt but having some professional standards is not ass kissing. Calm down.
The fact that a small nail file has to be "smuggled" on to a plane, but I can bring a metal pen or a screwdriver under 7in no issues is crazy. Both of those can cause more harm than a nail file. None of them are a threat, as you said it's been 25 years so clearly a screwdriver is safe. But God help if you have a nail file or a jar of peanut butter.
Streamline the rules to make some sense, and act like a professional. Literally every airport/country in Europe can manage this. Yet somehow it's just the craziest thing you've ever heard.
Also you keep saying 2 days but this post was posted 12hrs ago. I'm clearly not in the other thread you've been arguing in
I think they are perfectly professional enough. Its bad form to bitch about your fellow working citizens. Save your derision for their Directors.
I had the same argument on a different thread yesterday, with all the same lame arguments. I'm bored.
Reporters have proven time and time again it's really easy to smuggle stuff past TSA. They're incompetent and only there for the "security theater"
And as I have said in other posts, Security Theater is the entire point. The objective is to discourage the maniac from choosing an airplane for his nonsense, and going for a softer target, like a school, or mall, or something.
It sounds terrible, but you can kill 200 or more people in one blast on a plane, but even the most successful mass shooter had about 80 victims, and most only have a few, less than 10, often less than 5. That's horrible, but it's far better than hundreds.
Since 9/11, and the introduction of TSA and the enhanced security protocols, we haven't had a single successful hijacking in America, while we had hundreds before 9/11. That's success, and that's why TSA exists.
Would you rather get on a plane that has had no security scan of any passengers or baggage?
I've flown before 9/11 and security scans were already a thing.
What wasn't a thing were power hungry officials and draconian rules that don't matter.
Governments saw opportunity to grab control and lessen privacy. If you truly believe this is about safety, the you're sorely mistaken. There are plenty of other, non-invasive actions taken to increase security.