The Myth of Complete Safety
 

Techdirt's Mike Masnik has a great blog article on safety today: "TSA's Failure Based on the Myth of Perfect Security". The article points out something that every engineer knows intuitively; that it isn't possible to achieve 100% in any design. There are always failures -- always.

There are of course two issues:

Firstly, it is impossible to prevent every outcome and let people go about their business. No one can anticipate or prevent people going gun-crazy, or whatever. Here in the UK, we've had an MP attacked with a katana, and another stabbed by their constituents at a face-to-face "surgery" (consultation).
Someone recently pointed out that even under the oppression, suspicion and paranoia of Soviet Russia, they still had serial killers.

Secondly, people are inventive and cunning. Look at what they managed to achieve in places like Colditz, where despite being under guard, with regular inspections, roll calls and searches, they built an aircraft in the attic, dug tunnels, acquired equipment, forged documents, etc, etc.

I always pride myself in being able to find flaws in systems. Some people call it negativity, nit-picking or worse, but I call it game-testing.

Wikipedia reports about 40,000 people are killed each year on American highways. Divided by 250, this equals 160 airliner crashes per year with no survivors. About one every other day. And we accept this without comment, year after year. But the "possibility" of one terrorist blowing up a plane by walking aboard with, not a Glock, but a fingernail clipper or a miniature screwdriver has American citizens being harassed beyond measure. Granted, we need security, but intelligent security, please. Surely, if airline security is really the goal, we can do better. Of all the hundreds of thousands of people searched, of the tons of notions taken from travelers, not one potential terrorist has been reported apprehended. And if TSA did actually apprehend one, they would be screaming it from the rooftops as justification for what they are doing. If it's really being done for security, it's a dumb way to go about it. If it's an agenda, then it's well under way. Sooner or later we're going to have to address the oft-repeated statement used for justification for almost any new law or regulation dreamed up to negatively impinge upon our lives. "If it saves just one life, it's worth all the effort and expense." Just maybe, sometimes it may not be. There needs to be a balance somewhere.

I guess it comes down to what people are willing to accept. If planes start to fall out of the sky, then people will stop flying. For me, I don't like flying because of the lack of control and helplessness. I don't feel that way when I'm driving in my car even though I know someone can plow into me and kill me. I think we are willing to accept more risk when we feel we are in control of the situation.

I've never understood the notion of "control". If the history of humanity teaches us anything, it is that we have very little control over our lives and the direction that events may take.

Yes, I may be able to make decisions; but who knows whether they will turn out to be the correct or best course of actions, or whether they will lead to the outcome we expect. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", etc. Who knows what other events may come into play that may completely change things.

My favourite stories are always those where fate plays a hand and changes people's lives -- the Greek myths are excellent for this sort of thing. (That Oracle at Delphi is a b'stard!) Also Russian literature like Dostoyevsky. Particularly those stories where someone sets in motion a chain of events that brings about the exact opposite of what they were trying to achieve.

I've always thought that assuming myself to be "in control" is asking for trouble and being unrealistic!;)

My wife and I, who have been all over the world, stopped flying about 5 years ago. We thought the airport security myth was outrageous then. Gate Rape just seals the deal for us.

What if I told you that I had an invention that would revolutionize and improve life for people around the world. Trouble is, this invention is a bit unsafe and will probably end up killing maybe 40-50,000 people a year in the US alone and maybe a million plus worldwide.

Shall we go ahead and introduce and use this invention or is it just too dangerous?

Test it on lab animals first, then get beat up by PETA ;)

Sorry, we already have motorized transportation. So your hypothetical question is just a bit out of date... :).

I'd say introduce it and be honest about the risks. A 1 in 6775 chance of death (00.01%) is acceptable odds for a lot of people (hence the car reference). People will decide if the risk is worth the gain. Considering the high risk devices we already use...

If 40,000 deaths per year from vehicle accidents is an acceptable risk then maybe 3 or 4,000 deaths per year from terrorist activities is also acceptable; especially if we can avoid the idiocy at airports, two foolish wars costing billions of dollars per year and what I believe is an inexcusable erosion of our liberties.

I, for one, would be most pleased to relinquish the illusion of security for the return of our freedom and an end to the squander of our treasury.

In theory I agree, but the difficulty in using that comparison is that you are not comparing Apples to Apples. Sure the last terrorist attack only killed 2997 people (confirmed), but we can't say that every attack will be the exact same as that. It's not consistent like with automobile accidents, where you can fairly easily predict the number of deaths for any given population. For all we know some terrorist plans on planting a biological weapon on a plane and crashing that into a large populated area, there by killing closer to 1,000,000 people. Not likely, but it could happen.

And that leads us to the better argument against all this idiocy being masked behind the somewhat lame title of "airport security". It's a matter of diminishing returns being propelled by an industry that thrives on fear. Like any good military industrial complex there are security companies making the claim that they can prevent the situation I described above. But that's just silly. What if the plane in question was a private plane? What if the agent in question was readily available as a pesticide? Should we make every private flight go through the same screening as public flights? Should we do a background check on everyone who buys pesticide? No, that's silly. You're spending billions at that point trying to squelch the last .001% chance that something terrible is going to happen.

The thing this country needs in regards to this whole problem is a sense of what is reasonable. Somewhere out there is a good balance (though I fear we passed it a while ago.) We do need to recognize the inherent dangers of a flying passenger jet, which is basically a giant controlled explosion with wings (which is just waiting to be an uncontrolled explosion at the slightest provocation.) Should passengers be screened within reason? Yes! Should we do background checks on pilots? Yes! Should we keep a list of known terrorists around just incase? It might not be a bad idea so long as the list can be contested in court and any individual appearing on the list is properly notified and allowed to contest said listing. Sure, at that point it's probably fine.

But the current system... Something somewhere went wrong. At some point the security industry grabbed onto the fear of a few senators who didn't want to be the one who voted against "that one measure that would have stopped 'the big one'", if you will. And now we're in our current dilemna.

For what it's worth, I hope people keep complaining. I, for one, may refuse to be screened unless presented with a warrant. It's illegal search and seizure if you ask me. I'm having my basic freedom of movement being restricted by a group of hooligans who think it's okay to just search my person in an unreasonable fashion (and by hooligans I mean the heads of the TSA, not the poor agent who's just being paid to do a job. Please, don't get mad at them.)

Anyway, that's enough ranting for one night. I just hope we can all be more reasonable in the future, that's all...

[PS]: Here's a little something to chew on regarding my comments on illegal search and seizure (in US Law):

Source: Wikipedia

Is the ability to travel across country for business or pleasure a protected "liberty"? I would argue that it is...

Also:

Source: Wikipedia

If anyone can show me how the current airport security measures possibly jive with this amendment, I'd like to see it.

Seriously, somebody call the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and tell them to get someone to refuse the search on the basis of the 4th and 5th amendments. Take that to the Supreme Court and we'll have a real fight on our hands. At very least we might end up with a decision on what constitutes "reasonable" as regards airline security... (Fingers crossed that full body scans that violate the person space of me and my wife are not on that list.)

I think we'd agree that the operative word is "reasonable"...

Good post, Jay!

Jay, good analysis
 

We are way beyond the balance point as you have mentioned and there are definitely other ways to strike a large target (America) and there is no way to protect all of us at once.

I think all of this search stuff maybe a passing the buck situation. No president wants this to happen on their watch as it would most likely spell political defeat with the notion that enough wasn't done to protect us. And if(when) we are attacked again, it will unleash a military strike that will throw us into potentially another war. The terrorist may think they are winning because they are driving us into insolvency with these tactics. To destroy America, you only have to destroy the financial system! And we know how easy this can be.

Start by sending people into the hospitals. Then destroy the banks…

This holiday weekend I flew out of/in to JFK and had zero problems. I have a buzzed head and a full-grown, dark black beard (I could pass for middle eastern)...and was carrying a CPAP machine for my mother while going through security.

No back scatter machine. No enhanced pat down. No problems at all.

Lucky you. I hate the airports because of security. It's not so bad in Montreal but elsewhere it plain sucks.

The joy of flying -- after 09/11
 

.
I think Wendell’s highway death statistics -- a huge portion of which are caused by drivers who are drunk or under the influence of prescription drugs -- should provide a sense of proportion and a healthy perspective.

I still maintain that the danger of terrorism is outrageously exaggerated. I’m far more worried about, say, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. Not to mention terrorism carried out by an incompetent Xe/Blackwater employee who is under an American defense contract. It’s happened before and is extremely detrimental to our national security -- not to mention innocent civilians in countries where the perpetrator has no risk of being prosecuted!

Speaking strictly for myself, if I had had the money and time, I would have done a lot of cheap flying right after 09/11! :cool:
.

Your hypothetical contains the implication that the deaths from the road toll are inevitable.
They are not.
In the mid-'60s the state government here started a "let's declare war on 1034" campaign. 1034 was the number of road deaths in our state the previous year.
In 2009, 290 people died on the state's roads. Not good, but better than 1034.
In that time the population has almost doubled to over 5 million. The number of cars on the road has increased in step. The roads haven't really improved that much.
Two measures were credited with the reduction; compulsory wearing of seat belts and random drug and alcohol testing.
Extrapolating (unwisely, I know) there could be 27,000 lives saved by similar means in the US. Yes, your "liberty" would be impacted and your "control" would be lessened. And you didn't know any of those 40,000 did you?

We're having an anti-drunk-driving campaign after a well-known person in our area was tragically killed by a speeding drunk driver. Several drunk-driving "accidents" have occurred recently, but the number has seemingly gone down ever since the tragic collision last year.

This in Techdirt.com this morning: How The US Response Turns 'Failed' Terrrorist Attacks Into Successes. This brief version is based on "Death by a Thousand Cuts" in Foreign Policy

Slashdot posted a link to a paper written by a student in Oklahoma that says it all (and very well too). A Nude Awakening — TSA and Privacy.

Here's the perfect commentary in cartoon form: "Why People Should Learn Statistics"