It's not completely theater. I've had friends caught with ammo and knives (which they left in their luggage by accident). In every case they simply confiscated it and let them go, so it makes me feel alright that they have at least caught stuff. I find the liquids stuff annoying, but hey.
It's probably in airlines best interests to have security anyway - after all of the high profile (but extraordinarily rare) terror attacks, people are probably more apt to fly with some type of security.
We also know (from actual tests of the system even, not just from people like me claiming it) that people get through with stuff also.
So now you are saying we have a system where sometimes they catch you and they just take the stuff as part of a system where sometimes you just get through with your stuff... so there is no penalty to having some people try over and over again... if the goal is to actually stop stuff getting through then this is all pointless.
your anecdote supports "the TSA are not just pretending to do their jobs". But that's not what we mean by theater- we're saying that them doing their jobs, doesn't effectively reduce the likelihood of airplane terrorism. Especially considering the multi-billion-dollar price tag.
What part of TSA screening do you object to? The ID check, or the actual screening of bags?
It’s true that TSA security has been foiled by various “red team” exercises, sometimes in comical/embarrassing fashion. And, there is probably bloat in the agency, as well as problems with the contracting process for companies selling equipment. No one likes having to take off their shoes, myself included. Maybe policies around liquids and gels should be revisited.
At the same time, I think it’s unknowable how a return to pre-9/11 airport security would fare in today’s world; namely a world where private companies were “responsible” for screening, with the FAA providing oversight. See for example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/911.commis.knife/.
> “At the time of the attacks, commission staffers testified, the FAA prohibited passengers from boarding aircraft with knifes having blades longer than 4 inches, tear gas, mace and similar chemicals.
> Except for guns, large knives, explosives and incendiaries, carriers and screening contractors were allowed to use "common sense" in determining what was prohibited on planes, the staffers said.”
In today’s world, I’m not sure leaving airport security to the “free market” is necessarily a good idea. If there are new types of explosives, will private companies be able/willing to buy new equipment to deal with “improbable” threats?
TSA also deploys agents around the world to screen flights coming inbound to the US that originate in countries that can’t necessarily perform their own screenings. Do we expect private companies to pay Americans to live abroad? Or will they rely on poorly paid locals to do the job, maybe without background checks (if it’s even possible).
From a game theoretic perspective, I think it’s reasonable to assume that TSA provides some deterrent effect. Stringent security procedures do reduce the action/choice set of would-be terrorists. Post-9/11 flights within the US, and to the US, have not been affected by terrorist attacks, incompetent shoe and underwear bombers aside.
FWIW, in Israel, the security process is far more stringent. You have pre-airport physical checks, interviews, passing of luggage through pressurized chambers etc. If you fly El-Al anywhere in the world, there is an extra headache associated with additional screening. But, the record of an El-Al (0 successful hijackings) leads many who travel to Israel to choose El-Al.
TL;DR, everyone wishes there was a way to have secure flights, without having to undergo invasive screenings.
I object to the id check. I shouldn't need an id to travel Domestically.
I object to the search and seizure of my property.
Doing nothing will give us just as safe and secure flights as we have today.
The way to fix 9/11 was to change procedures, not treat every passenger like a criminal.
