Hacker News Reader

Comment by bigstrat2003 | Hacker News Reader

bigstrat2003

How, exactly, is it this administration's fault? They didn't create Precheck (which dates back to the Obama admin iirc), and this new facet of Precheck is explicitly stated to not cost extra. So I don't see how you can possibly blame the current administration for monetizing the security regime. At most they are continuing a bad policy that others started.

And to be clear, I think that Precheck is a stupid-ass program. If the security measures are truly necessary, then you shouldn't exempt anyone from them. And if they aren't necessary, then they should be abolished. Precheck always struck me as a tacit admission that the TSA is security theater while trying to make some extra money for the government. But again, that isn't some kind of sin unique to the Trump admin the way you implied.

View on HN

All of the post 9-11 measures other then:

- securing the cockpit

- training staff to resist hijacking

- ensuring checked bags have boarded passengers

Are worthless theater.

But, if you don’t accept that, and believe that more physical passenger screening is important, adjusting the level of screening based on a per-passenger threat assessment seems reasonable.

No selective HUMINT is worthwhile?

I'm not sure what you mean

An awful lot of money was spent on systems to track and profile fliers.

It’s the reason TSA Precheck is a thing at all.

I still can’t see the point you are trying to make

“All the post-9/11 security measures other than… are worthless theater.”

My point is that many of those security measures are largely invisible to passengers, but for the introduction of things like “Trusted Traveler #”’s

> ensuring checked bags have boarded passengers

You mean you used to be able to just send a bag without flying yourself, and have someone else pick it up at the destination airport? Was this something that people did intentionally or did it happen accidentally?

You could check in, check your bags, and then walk out. They would not remove the bag from the plane.

FWIW your bags may still occasionally travel without you (but you still have to board A flight)

> FWIW your bags may still occasionally travel without you (but you still have to board A flight)

This is false.

If you check into the airport early (4+ hours) your bag may go on an earlier flight without you.

And you can decide not to board your original flight.

I wouldn't say false especially when quoting the whole sentence. What you suggest is so rare (worldwide) it might as well be false. It's such a bad idea for the airline to ship your bags before the passenger makes it onto the plane.

Isn't that the case today? They're loading the baggage while people board and they don't hold the bag until you get your ticket scanned in.

If the owner of a bag does not board the bag is removed.

I've never heard of this happening, and I'm skeptical. I fly a decent amount and my luggage gets misplaced likely in the low percents (more than 1%, less than 5%). I struggle to believe they'll be aware enough to unload a full cargo compartment.

But I could be wrong. Maybe it's just rare enough that I haven't run into it. I would expect it would delay the flight by a noticeable amount. And it would be fairly obvious that they're unloading luggage and then reloading it. It's not like they can just send someone in to climb around and find it. They pack them in tight.

I'm had this happen. It is rare.

I've always had the impression that they don't start loading the bags until after the gate is closed.

I'm pretty sure that they are loading before the gates open. If my memory isn't entirely gone, I recall watching them load luggage while waiting at the gate for the cleaners to finish.

Yeah, I meant doing that intentionally to send something to someone else for the cost of flight without having to wait days for shipping. Could you even get to the baggage claim area of an airport pre-9/11 without having flown into it?

> I meant doing that intentionally to send something to someone else

Someone told me they'd done that in the 70s. In their case, they were planning to travel and bring along stuff that belonged to a friend at their destination. At the last minute, they couldn't make the trip and they decided the easiest solution was to check the bags and scurry out of the airport. They were worried the airline would deny a refund, but they got their money back just fine.

Baggage claim was no problem. Anybody could (and mostly still can) access it. I remember a time where they kind of corralled it all in and checked your bag tag and stub to make sure you weren't wandering off with someone else's luggage. That was a chaotic, ineffective, and short-lived effort.

How is ensuring checked bags have boarded passengers not also theater? Airlines openly sell unattended cargo space on passenger flights and it's screened the same way as checked luggage.

Do you get to specify the plane it goes on? Can you purchase it untraceable, the way you can you a plane ticket with a prepaid card, check in and check luggage without any ID?

You can constrain the plane it goes on because there's only a small number of flights between city pairs with a given carrier.

You also can't buy a plane ticket for an anonymous person. It has to be for a legal person, which the government is informed of before the flight takes place. That ID is attached to the luggage when it's checked, which is how they can implement bag retrieval when the passenger doesn't board. I'm sure there's an airline somewhere out there accepting checked bags without tickets or ID, but it's not supposed to be allowed.

For air cargo, someone provides an ID, but it's usually the shipper or some other person with no real involvement beyond working in the supply chain. There's a chain of check boxes that says "I received this from an entity I have a legitimate business relationship with" and that's good enough in practice.

I should add, two other items that I think were added in this time period, which are not security related, but IMO are good are:

- seriously, you need to follow the instructions of the staff on board

- don't get (very) drunk before or after boarding, don't bring and drink your own alcohol

Fun fact: It's expressly illegal to move around the cabin when the seatbelt sign is on while taxiing, but not when in the air.

Turbulence is probably the leading cause of injuries and deaths from modern air travel, but taxiing incidents at extremely rare and pretty much never result in injuries.

Yesterday, I saw an interesting Lufthansa training film from the 1970s explaining how aircraft crews should respond to hijacking. (In the early 1970s, hijackings occurred weekly.) Most of the recommendations from security experts turned out to be exactly wrong for 9/11: Don't attempt anything against the hijackers. Do everything the hijackers demand. Passengers should follow the instructions of the hijackers and should not try to be heros. On the other hand, they described locked cabin doors with TV monitors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pzIbUW8jIw

I didn’t blame the administration for starting Pre-Check: I’m faulting them for not ending it, instead adding another feature to it. The new gate access is free - for TSA Pre-Check enrollees. Meaning this will increase demand for the service. They could have done the population a (rare) solid and found a way to phase out the security theater.

You said:

> they simply decided to monetize it. That tracks for this administration.

But this administration didn't cause the monetization. I am fine with criticizing them for not ending the TSA - I too think they should end it. But your post implied some kind of corruption angle, one that is specifically due to this administration. And I don't think that criticism holds true. One must criticize them for only the things they've actually done, imo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com