The Origins of Security Screening at Airports

lawhistory 1 month, 1 week ago on Twitter

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr gives a helpful overview of airline security administration http://bit.ly/2Wmnm2 {GR}

Reply

jabolins 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

Prof @OrinKerr on the Origins of Security Screening at US Airports. Nice intro. http://tinyurl.com/ygrq3bw

Reply

Pintler 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

The cost, I think, is that there’s less air travel today. ... I know that I have several times decided to drive rather than fly to a destination about 8 or 9 hours drive away.

And note that that cost is not just in time or hassle — flying is safer on a per passenger mile basis, so there is a cost in lives when people drive instead of fly.

There is presumably an optimal level of airline security which balances deaths avoided by preventing hijackings against deaths incurred by encouraging people to drive instead. Whether the current system is at that point is an interesting question.

n.b. that this can be a substantial effect. A recent book (‘Freakonomics’? ‘Predictably Irrational’? Sorry, drawing a blank at the moment) made a plausible case that the death toll from 9/11 was around 4500 — 3000 odd on 9/11 and 1500 over the next year as people drove instead of flying. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

PatHMV 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

There is a real cost to this screening. Market forces do win out in the end, despite government efforts to interfere. The cost, I think, is that there’s less air travel today. I don’t have the stats, but I know that I have several times decided to drive rather than fly to a destination about 8 or 9 hours drive away. This will, over time, tend to increase regionalization of cultures in the country. I also pollute more, I suspect, by driving rather than taking mass transit airplanes.

Why do I drive? The increased security is a big part of it. Leaving the pocket knife behind, the stress of the cattle-herding lines, the stress of trying to not delay the lines, while removing your shoes, taking your laptop out of the case, etc., etc., then reassembling your gear on the other side of the checkpoint. Then there’s the excess time it takes, having to arrive an hour early, at least. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Oren 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

The federal government took it over as a blatant power grab to expand the number of unionized governemnt workers

Yeah, that George W was a real union stooge. Please.

Reply

Matthew Carberry 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

The test isn’t whether we’ve had any more hijacking attempts, attacking or not attacking is a decision made by the attacker.

The valid test of whether the new system of screening is a worthwhile (cost/benefit) improvement over than the old is whether, using the same testing methods, the system passes more tests.

By that metric, the new TSA driven system has apparently proven ineffective as it appears to allow the same percentage of test weapons and bombs through screening as the old.

But at least we have entertaining security kabuki to watch as we revel in no net gain in security, a definite loss of privacy and increase in cost, inconvenience and time.

The loafer manufacturing lobby also probably appreciates the changes. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Malvolio 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Randy: If this [the federalization of airport security] was nothing more than a power grab by the unions, then it was supported by the vast majority of the people because they thought government workers would do a better job than the private industry. One argue with this, but one can’t argue with the fact that we haven’t had any further incidents.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!

Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Randy 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Toby: “The federal government took it over as a blatant power grab to expand the number of unionized governemnt workers — a huge expansion of the SEIU.”

Nope. Completely wrong. In fact, this was the argument of Tom Delay & Co. when they attempted to prevent the government takeover of the screeners.

The reason the government took over the screeners is that after 9/11, many stories came out about the imcompetence of the screeners. Most were contracted under a single company that had close ties to republican politicians. The news reports proved that almost all the screeners were paid less than what you could earn selling donuts at the airport.

As a result, there were high turnover rates in these positions, and the people who took the jobs tended to be uneducated. I myself remember that most of them were lacksidaisical and could barely speak english.

So, after 9/11, the Dems proposed that the lives of passengers were too important to leave to a private company that clearly failed to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Support for this was unusually high, around 70% if I recall correctly.

If this was nothing more than a power grab by the unions, then it was supported by the vast majority of the people because they thought government workers would do a better job than the private industry. One argue with this, but one can’t argue with the fact that we haven’t had any further incidents. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

SumBudy 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Toby: Not exactly, Eli. Airline workers could still put box cutters on planes today, where they can be found by passengers later.

Actually, I like having a single entity — the government — responsible for airline security. It provides a “buck stops here” measure of sanity, and if (when?) the government f*cks up and a terrorist comes up with a scenario that we couldn’t imagine, then I know exactly who to blame. It’s much easier to coordinate blame this and throw the bums out. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Pintler 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Randy: Why was it such a fad to hijack a plane to Cuba?Is the food and music so compelling that you would risk the death penalty to get there?

Answer 1:Freedom loving people wanted to escape the land of capitalist exploitation for the Caribbean worker’s paradise.

Answer 2:It was the closest reasonable place to hijack a plane that wasn’t likely to extradite you.

Reply

Toby 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Not exactly, Eli. Airline workers could still put box cutters on planes today, where they can be found by passengers later. The federal government took it over as a blatant power grab to expand the number of unionized governemnt workers — a huge expansion of the SEIU. That Bush went along,slowly, was part of the usual expected failures of the Bush administration

And several others seem prone to circular reasoning. The US has manadated that any country that wishes to fly a plane into the US (or connecting to one) use procedures that match those now used in the US–so this is apparantly confirmation that the US was adopting some sort of rational world consensus. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

ErrorFix 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Origins of Security ... http://bit.ly/39FwNY

Reply

Gene Hoffman 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

WatchingTheWatchers: Red teams are still pretty good at breaching security.I suppose security measures do raise the bar in the sense that only a more talented (or lucky) subset of hijackers are likely to successfully hijack a plane nowadays.

The problem with our current Theater Security Agency is that there is no price to a brute force attack except for time. As such, it’s pretty easy to buy full fare refundable tickets and keep trying until one figures out how to circumvent security routinely enough to actually pull of a negative event...

–Gene ... See all content Hide content

Reply

jswalden 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

http://bit.ly/130zbM Airport screening: What is it good for? Actually, something (apparently, preventing hijackings) (say it again, y'all!)

Reply

Ricardo 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Orin Kerr: I’m curious, what airports in the world do not have any security screening? Or has the entire world bought into this fashion?

I’ve flown through many countries and it seems universal aside from charter flights and maybe some regional domestic airlines operating in remote places outside the U.S. Even the 3 oz. liquid rule officially exists as a 100 mL rule in just about every country in the world although it isn’t necessarily evenly enforced. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

WatchingTheWatchers 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Randy: Why was it such a fad to hijack a plane to Cuba?Is the food and music so compelling that you would risk the death penalty to get there?

Some people were trying to escape from a workers’ paradise with an antagonistic relationship with its northern neighbor. Some people were trying to escape to a workers’ paradise with an antagonistic relationship with its northern neighbor.

Reply

Randy 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Why was it such a fad to hijack a plane to Cuba? Is the food and music so compelling that you would risk the death penalty to get there?

Reply

Oren 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Does anyone argue that the market can solve crimes like hijacking?

I don’t see why United cannot hire an Air Marshall just as well as the DHS ...

No thoughts on the changing rationale for the searches though? It’s a 4A softball!

Reply

byomtov 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Does anyone argue that the market can solve crimes like hijacking?

I think SuperSkeptic does a good job of outlining the market worship argument. Airlines want a reputation for not being hijacked. Therefore they will institute anti-hijacking measures without government involvement. To the extent theese are ineffective, it merely reflects the attainment of an optimum level of hijacking, considering various cost trade-offs.

It does sound stupid, Orin. I agree. But it’s not much different in form than, say, anti-OSHA arguments, or the like. I think you would be astonished at what some peope believe about the power of markets. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

SuperSkeptic 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Oh, and to be clear: That is not to say that the market would “solve” the crime of hijacking, or that hijacking shouldn’t be punished, merely that the market would minimize it’s occurrence most effectively. (And I was just playing Devils Advocate).

Reply

SuperSkeptic 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Orin Kerr: I’m not sure I follow. Hijacking is the nonconsensual interference with property and security interests of another, not a market transaction: Does anyone argue that the market can solve crimes like hijacking?

I don’t presume to be capable of such an argument, but I imagine it would go somewhere along the lines of: The airline company and the consumer bargain for their respective safety conditions and just accept the results. After all, it’s in their interest to be safe (to maintain customers as well as their planes) and in your interest to consent to some higher degree of search conditions for your own safety. Or you could just take the cheap plane co. that doesn’t screen at all. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

byomtov 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

The number of annual attempted hijackings dropped to single digits soon after, and then to zero or close to it.

You mean the market didn’t solve the hijacking problem, and that a (shudder) regulation was needed. Careful, Orin, you are about to be excommunicated.

Reply

WatchingTheWatchers 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Red teams are still pretty good at breaching security. I suppose security measures do raise the bar in the sense that only a more talented (or lucky) subset of hijackers are likely to successfully hijack a plane nowadays.

Reply

Laura(southernxyl) 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

The rule used to be that the passengers were unhurt, which is why the hijackers usually got what they wanted. People were conditioned to sit still and be quiet. 9/11 changed that forever.

Reply