| |
| ▲ | echoangle 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Is that surprising? It’s a federal agency representing the security apparatus of the US. That’s a good target for terrorism. | | |
| ▲ | michaelt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Most places I've worked, despite similar security needs, have met them in a much less... performative way. After all, the security gate is the first impression visitors get of your industrial facility, or office, or embassy, or whatever. You want it to look welcoming and secure at the same time. Projecting strength but not fearfulness. If you must use the cheap fencing, conceal it with some plants. Where the fence is visible, go for some nice decorative metalwork. Move the turnstiles into a lobby and put a reception desk and some couches next to them. Add some meeting rooms (and toilets and coffee facilities) at the security boundary, so job interviews and meetings with suppliers don't give them unfettered access. | | |
| ▲ | bryant a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The performance aspect is necessary when managing optics with a whole nation's population. Plenty of people have no idea what good security looks like, but they expect it looks like a lot of steps and many inconveniences. Corporations generally don't need to worry about this. | |
| ▲ | jfengel 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | An influential social media figure started naming federal employees who should be fired because their job is a waste of tax money. Some of those employees are now receiving death threats. The government doesn't generally spend a lot of money on things like "decorative metalwork". People get grumpy about it. |
| |
| ▲ | forgetfreeman 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Representing the security what now? Given the agency's performance over the decades I'd be deeply surprised to find out the TSA could credibly secure a mall parking lot. | | |
| ▲ | echoangle 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That’s not the point of terrorism. If you blow up a TSA building, citizens get scared because it looks like „if the state can’t even protect itself, how are they going to protect me?“. | | |
| ▲ | pksebben 2 days ago | parent [-] | | there are semi-competent arms of the US security apparatus that are not principally theatrical, that I would find shocking to be hit. The NSA comes to mind. If anyone ever hit the TSA I'd just laugh at their piss-poor targeting. Thanks for clearing out our dusty community theater, now maybe we can build an ice cream shop there or something else actually useful. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | cvadict a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > That’s a good target for terrorism. Exactly! Nobody would be laughing if Al-Qaeda drove a giant Dasani truck into TSA headquarters, would they? | | | |
| ▲ | A4ET8a8uTh0 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | To be honest, I am genuinely surprised an attack never materialized. But then I also remember mentioning my thoughts on the matter to my wife, who was aghast that I would even consider such a scenario. Maybe, on average, people are actually decent and it is people like me, who come up with weird hypotheticals. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >To be honest, I am genuinely surprised an attack never materialized. I'm not. The TSA is hated by the populace the way the population hates every wasteful boondoggle jobs program. Foreigners hate them for profiling but that's pretty far down the list of grievances. Foreigners looking to strike at America and Americans looking to get off the porch likely have dozens of more preferable targets. I doubt the TSA makes any would be attackers list of top five most deserving agencies. Edit: A fed sponsored false flag attack on the TSA could make a good comedy plot. It might need to be a TV series in order to have time to fit in all the jokes, references, tropes and wise cracks you'd be obligated to make when covering such subject matter. | |
| ▲ | wombatpm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You mean I’m not the only one who has wondered if you could etch a knife shape onto the back of an acrylic clipboard? Something that wouldn’t show up on X-ray, but could be punched out with little effort on the plane? My wife says it’s a wonder I’m not on the no fly list. | | |
| ▲ | A4ET8a8uTh0 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh, I never considered that:D It is an interesting use of materials, but seems unnecessary. I was thinking about a scenario in which an assailant would attack an actual soft spot in an airport. That did not happen. That is the part that surprises me ( and I am glad I remain surprised ). Then again, you start reading about new and exciting ways of detecting guns and you start wondering if that is basically trying to fight an old war. << My wife says it’s a wonder I’m not on the no fly list. For better or worse, my work almost guarantees that I will be looking for mildly interesting subjects so I am likely on some sort of grey list ( no idea what IC would call it internally ). No 'no fly' list yet, but these days it only takes being extra rude it seems[1] so these days that list is a major inconvenience, but the signal it generates is less useful:D [1]https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2021/01/15/delta-air-line... |
| |
| ▲ | harrall 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ~60 airplane hijackings per year in the 70s. We’ve significantly reduced it down to <4 per year. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/airliner-hijackings-and-f... | | |
| ▲ | Zak 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Reinforced doors and a belief among everyone from passengers to pilots that a successful hijacking is likely to lead to death rather than inconvenience reduced hijacking after 2001. I would be surprised if searching passengers more aggressively or requiring people to prove their address to get a driver's license had much to do with it. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I think passenger game-theory is the number one reason, and that was already in place on September 12th, 2001. Passengers are now aware that hijackers might actually just buying time until they can trigger a murder-suicide attempt, and many will believe it is likely enough that they need to fight for their own lives. The old assumptions that "almost everyone gets out alive by passively cooperating" no longer hold. | | |
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who's we? Al Qaeda reduced it down to ~4 per year because now passengers no longer assume to survive and act accordingly. Locked doors and plain clothes security are just icing on the cake. | | |
| ▲ | echoangle 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Who's we? Al Qaeda reduced it down to ~4 per year because now passengers no longer assume to survive and act accordingly. You think hijackings decreased because the passengers are more likely to attack the hijackers now? I think it’s more likely that surveillance and intelligence is better now and most hijacking attempts get discovered before they are executed. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not parent poster, but absolutely. Look at all those other pre-2001 hijackings, and ask yourself what would have happened if most of the passengers were terrified that the hijackers were preparing to destroy the entire plane and everyone on it, regardless of any demands being made or met. Would-be hostage-taking hijackers know it too: Their business plan, as it were, has been ruined for a generation by their suicidal colleagues. | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Airline and security protocols are no longer "comply with everything so that nobody gets killed". Doors are locked. Passengers will likely bum rush you. There might be armed security on any given flight. The odds of success are unbelievably long compared to what they were in the 80s. Just not worth it vs a "boring" bombing or whatever. |
|
| |
| ▲ | echoangle 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hijacking an airplane isn’t an attack on the TSA specifically though. We were talking about the security of the TSA building itself. | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, but the TSA wasn't created in the 1980s, when most of the decrease happened. The TSA wasn't invented until after 9/11. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | emilamlom 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, they are the best at security theater, so it makes sense their headquarters is too. | |
| ▲ | woodruffw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Depending on your perspective on security theater, it might be appropriate to observe that a TSA building as exactly as much security as the TSA is capable providing itself. | |
| ▲ | jrockway 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think it's reasonable. Not the exact details of this installation necessarily. The reality is that there are a bunch of people that want to lash out at the government for whatever reason, and the civil servants that just want to do their job shouldn't be put in a dangerous situation by allowing those people to walk into their offices unimpeded. If you believe that the agency shouldn't exist, lobby Congress. Don't take it out on people that just want to do their assigned administrative work for 8 hours a day. Remember that someone was so mad at the IRS that they filled their airplane with gas cans and flew it into an IRS building, killing an employee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack Some security precautions are understandable in my opinion. (I don't think the ID requirement is reasonable. Take and store a photograph, deleted after 3 months, and make people go through a metal detector. Also, put the ID requirement documents online. It's free.) | | |
| ▲ | bobthepanda 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There's also been significantly worse. 168 people died in the Oklahoma City bombing by a domestic terrorist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing | | |
| ▲ | jrockway 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yup, exactly. That's what they're up against. I think it's reasonable to take precautions. I guess I'm getting downvoted for "checking ID at the gate doesn't prevent you from flying your airplane into the building" which is true, but we have to realize that most anti-government-inclined folks don't jump right to a terrorist attack as their first intervention. I do think that people hired to do a job deserve some protection from the general public while at their workplace. |
|
|
|
