Back in the late 90s, when I was still hanging around with venture capitalists and investment bankers, I remember one telling me, “most of the time, if you can find asymmetric knowledge, you can monetize it.
At that time, I thought it was probably true; the investor class are really good at making a buck out of any situation where they have an advantage.
As I was going through airport security here at LAX, I realized that I was in an asymmetric knowledge situation:
- The security people don’t know if I have a bomb in my bag.
- I know that I don’t have a bomb in my bag.
- ??
- Profit!
I’m afraid that the profit margins on this have already been squeezed out, though: trusted traveler programs appear to assume that because I’m willing to spend $75 and send my picture to a government agency, I’m not a terrorist. Because nobody who wanted to die and kill a lot of people would be willing to cough up $75.
So, if you can prove my old investment banker associate was right, you can make a lot of money. Somehow. How could you prove you’re not a terrorist? I don’t think that’s possible but if you can figure it out, you’ll be rich.
We security people specialize in thinking of the worst things that can happen in practically any situation. That’s why, generally, security practitioners don’t go around with ticking time bomb and trolley-cart problems; we’re too busy living less fraught versions. With luck, it’s not lives at stake, it’s just credit cards and national security information, but the security practitioners are the ones who are always looking around at the airport security lines, and clutching their temples. That’s part of why I nearly gave myself a concussion /facepalming at the debate between Sam Harris and Bruce Schneier – about security (though Harris didn’t seem to understand that). Bruce has forgotten more about security than Harris will ever think, and I remember when Bruce was a new guy on the scene.
By the way, look at the picture above: who needs to get a bomb past security when they can just set it off in the middle of that neatly arranged crowd? That’s how security people think. It’s why we’re so depressing at parties.
I have been through LAX. In the early 1980s.
Never again.
chigau@#1:
It’s worse now.
I only go to LA for work.
It’s the Security Theatre””of “We must be seen to be doing something.”
All it needs is the chap wearing the white hat in the above photo to have a bomb and …
Recently there was talk here in Oz about how dangerous that is, and that preliminary screening should be done outside the terminal. What a great idea, mass people about on footpaths, making them vulnerable to the bigger blast of a car/truck bomb.
All this ever does is give a win to “the terrorists who hate us because of our freedom” as our freedoms are surrendered one by one.
Please tell me there is such a thing as the “LAX Security Department”…
This is just another example of human irrationality. Shouldn’t the deciding factor in how scared people become be something tangible, like, for example, the potential death count? But, no, that’s not how people perceive it. The possibility of a bomb going off in an airplane seems scarier than the possibility of a bomb exploding in some crowded place where it can kill just as many people. This is why people worry about bombs on airplanes, but don’t even think much about all the countless crowded places present in every city.
From my personal experience I can attest that security people aren’t boring or depressing at parties. I know this is just my personal perception (I perceive security problems as interesting and I’m not easily depressed), but “depressing” isn’t some objective property anyway, it’s just a matter of people’s personal perception. If I don’t perceive some conversation as depressing, then it’s not.
Do they still have the special TSA lanes for first class passengers? I recall that generated some pushback when they first tried it. My view was that here are people who are willing to pay extra to be seated closer to the cockpit; they deserve more scrutiny, not less.
This is true, but keep in mind the scenario that started all this: that by taking over an aircraft, they could use the whole thing as a really big bomb.
By saying fuck this shit and opting out of flying all together. Not exactly a money-making proposition, but there’s no way I’m going to bomb that plane if I never get on it.
Law of diminishing returns.
Also: Law of unintended consequences.
Also: Law of perfection being the enemy of good enough.
Finally: giving up far more freedom than the security gained.
Check your privilege. British people of my age never worried much about bombs on airplanes (before Lockerbie at least). We were instead trained by the Irish to “expect” bombs in crowded places (I have reasonable suspicion I may have almost literally sat on an IRA bomb in 1993, a bomb that heroically killed two children). I suspect there are other countries where they have similar expectations. It’s just never been much of a thing for any of the USA and most of Europe.
The fee to bypass normal security screenings give the lie to the theater. It’s like they are saying to us, “Look, we know this show is stupid, so if you don’t want to sit through it, just give us some money and you can be on your way.” Frankly, it reeks more than a little of extortion.
@#10
I don’t think “privilege” is the right word here. It takes an immense amount of abuse and imperialistic ambitions until some oppressed people become desperate enough to become suicide bombers. Yes, there have never been any bombings at all in my country. But I don’t think that I’m privileged. It’s just that people in my country have lived peacefully, they never had any imperialistic ambitions, they never attempted to conquer, abuse or enslave some other nations. Hence, nobody hates us enough to attempt to detonate some bombs here. Saying that we are “privileged,” because we decided not to abuse others sounds somewhat weird. It’s not like Britons or Americans or anybody else was forced to abuse other nations. Their politicians chose to do so. Bombings are the consequence of some poor political decisions rather than lack of privilege. It’s probably accurate to say that people in my country are lucky because our politicians didn’t do anything too stupid. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say that we are privileged.
Hearing a huge bang while in a petrol station on the edge of London in the mid 70s and assuming it was an IRA bomb; it was a glazier who had misjudged the height of the glas on the side of his van in relation to the height of the canopy.
Going to university in Birmingham in the late 70s and having your bag searched if you went into any of the underground pubs.
We had the IRA, the Spanish had the Basque seperatists, Italy had the Red Brigades, Germany had the Bader Meinoff Gang and there are no doubt others I have forgotten.
#10 @Reginald Selkirk
That’s an attack that works only if the passengers and crew don’t know about it or, if they do know about it, they’re willing to let it happen.
This attack became unusable in the U.S. (and probably worldwide) no later than 10:03 a.m. on Sept. 11th, 2001, barely more than an hour after it was first used. The cockpit voice recorder of flight 93 reveals that the hijackers became convinced that they could not maintain control of the aircraft in the face of passenger resistance and ended up crashing it into a field rather than their target.
During the hight of the IRA bombing campaign I was working in an office in Hamilton Ontario. Our receptionist stepped into our work area and mentioned that someone had left a brief case. Our two new British hires chorused, “Is it ticking?”
True, but they did not random bombings on public spaces, they assassinated people they considered ‘important’.
@Ieva:
Weren’t there some Nazi-collaborators in the baltic states? And weren’t there, after WWII, some anti-soviet partisans?
The Nazis (my ancestors, so to speak) were Pretty much super-imperialists.
Bruce H, ostensibly, the TSA fee pays for a ‘background check’ that means you’re a safe traveller.
I don’t know what the rate is for applicants who get turned down for the ‘pre-check’. I suspect it’s close to zero, based both on the people who are willing to pay to avoid standing in line with all the riffraff, and an actual potential terrorist might not want to take the risk that there is an actual, effective check.
I’d be really curious to see actual statistics though. :)
Everytime I have to fly commercial and go through airport security, it makes me that much more tempted to just by my own light aircraft to bypass all that (not to mention the joy of flying in and of itself).
Crimson Clupeidae@#18:
I don’t know what the rate is for applicants who get turned down for the ‘pre-check’.
Apparently they used to go on a watch-list!
I did the TSA Precheck back when I was traveling a lot and it really made a difference (some airlines now don’t process your precheck if you’re not a priority gold member of their awards program, thanks capitalists!) and as far as I can tell the only check they do is if your credit card payment clears.
wereatheist @#17
A proper answer would require typing a several thousand words long summary of history books. I don’t feel like doing that. Sometimes history is complicated, and it’s not possible to make a short and accurate description of what was a not exactly simple situation.
For the short version, here’s an old joke, which illustrates the problem:
An old Lithuanian man tries to avoid any interactions with Nazi soldiers and attempts to go on with his daily life.
He gets brutally beaten and dragged away never to be seen again.
After witnessing that, his daughter starts speaking German and does everything she can in order to appease German soldiers.
She gets brutally raped and dragged away never to be seen again.
Ieva Skrebele@#20:
For the short version, here’s an old joke, which illustrates the problem:
Doesn’t a joke have to be funny?