A small amount more accountability for the TSA

[PeterNSteinmetz]

How much stuff do they actually catch? Much, much more than you could ever realize.

Well, they have never been able to document a single terrorist attack which they have prevented, not even to classified committees which have asked about it.

Their are many reasons to believe this type of mass screening just can’t work to prevent very rare events. The odds just are against them. It is statistically similar to the problem of trying to screen the population for a very rare disease.

Overall, no credible evidence they prevent terrorist attacks. I’d be happy to see some, but the studies that have looked at this say the TSA is not an effective way to save lives.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

If they did catch a credible threat, I'm quite sure they would crow about it.
Like the video said, they didn't stop the shoe bomber, nor the underwear bomber. They also fail to catch most test weapons. when they stop a credible threat, it would be posted here: https://www.instagram.com/tsa/

Agreed they would be crowing.

In fairness, the shoe and underwear bombers were on flights originating from outside the US so the TSA could not have caught them. The mass screening programs used in foreign countries, similar to that used by the TSA did FAIL to catch them however.

What did work, if people will recall, was the interception of the printer cartridge bomb. This was based on old fashioned police work and sources, nothing to do with a mass screening program.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Nothing but conjecture....... you ain’t got a thing but conjecture. Too funny.

Conjecture is defined as inference without sufficient proof or evidence. Is their any actual evidence the TSA has prevented a terrorist attack? Please post a link - otherwise I am afraid the assertion that the TSA has done so would be a conjecture.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

How blind you must be. Seriously. Name one terror event perpetuated on the intermodal system since 9/11.

An ad hominem attack. Not only is that a logical fallacy, but in public fora, rude.

I’m afraid that focusing on the personal characteristics of the speaker and ignoring the actual points of a discussion won’t lead anywhere interesting to me.

I will note that ad hominem attacks are often a sign that the person making the attack is unable at that time to address the points of an argument.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Name one terror event perpetuated on the intermodal system since 9/11.

This is correct. However, as I have documented in another thread, the rate of such attacks was so low prior to the inception of the TSA in November 2001 that one cannot reject the hypothesis that the rate of such attacks was the same before and AFTER the TSA was put in place.

So that fact does not provide real evidence that the TSA has prevented such attacks.

All the other evidence which strongly suggests the TSA is not effective in improving public safety thus argues for its discontinuance.

This question had been looked at fairly seriously. See for example the book Terror, Security and Money.

I am not aware of a serious study presenting evidence and statistical reasoning which would show that the TSA is a cost effective way to improve the safety of the traveling public. There is actually reasonably good evidence that the TSA is indirectly responsible for 300 excess traffic deaths per year.