Yes, prior to 9/11 airports would hire private companies to do their security checks. This was often why different airports would have different degrees of thoroughness; I recall a trip through Kansas City in the mid-90s where I was amazed (and annoyed) that I had to turn on my laptop, despite never having to do that for dozens of trips elsewhere.

Today they call that, "By design".

Good way to cover up the fact that there's no consistency in the organization.

What about the lines? People don't get felt up or forced through machines to wait in the lines to get felt up or forced through machines.

I fail to see how someone couldn't just bomb the lines with the exact same effect you're describing above.

I'd much rather prefer volunteering to use a private company's services freely without force or coercion, and risk dying randomly, then be harassed and embarrassed and risk dying randomly.

You raise a good (and horrifying) point.

If your goal, as a terrorist organization, was to economically wound an industry while killing as many individuals as possible... you really couldn't ask for a better target than dozens (if not hundreds) of people standing around waiting to get through airport security.

Clearly, the solution is to have some pre-security security checks. /s

Sadly, you're suggestion will be mentioned if this happens I'm sure. But instead of a physical step before the gates, it will be a mental one. What place could you check people prior to them being physically checked before boarding?

When they think about using an airplane. When someone thinks about travelling, the TSA will locate and travel to them, and direct the citizen through their thought crime machine. If you refuse, then the TSA strip search you and inspect your orifices in public, which will also be the next step from private rooms. /s

Security is a feeling. Also, there are events and odds. The events and odds don't make me feel like policy is needed for me to feel safe travelling IMO. What happens happens. If someone tries to logically attempt to cast blame upon a party for something like a bombing for not preemptively stopping it, then I'll just point to the math surrounding the TSA. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

if the TSA were abolished I'm pretty sure the airlines/airports would still have security. I think a majority of US passengers wouldn't be comfortable getting on a plane where there were absolutely no security of any kind up front.

Too bad the government makes that choice. I'd assume that if people, or consumers of travelling via airplane, were as you say, cautious about travel, a free market alternative would be better than the TSA.

That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane.

All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidise security for air travel. Let the market sort it out.

well that sounds more like a standard libertarian vs. socialized angle which is IMO a different issue.

I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down.

Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.

> Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror.

The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens.

So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?

No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre.

Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst.

> Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.

Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word.

That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/

Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...

> Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?

not really, no, this seems like you're responding to something else here.

> I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us.

how exactly, I'd pick one airport and you'd pick another ? I'm not sure that's very practical in many situations.

> If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here.

I know how they feel, the TSA is an offensive, incompetent and heavy handed group, combating a so called "issue" that in reality is not an issue at all. The HN community looks at issues in a statistical fashion - terrorist attacks kill extremely few people, so there's really no reason anyone should care about them, slipping in the shower is a much greater hazard. If only the rest of the world could think like they do, nobody would care about terrorism and it would just go away. I look forward to when that comes to fruition.

> I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective.

Well I'm not speaking from any authoritative background here but I'd guess that the average US traveler would prefer there be some level of airport screening (probably not at the crazy levels we have at the moment with the TSA) not for any sociological or philosophical viewpoint but probably more like a "hey can't someone sneak a bomb onto the plane here?" kind of standpoint - which sure is informed by the media and all that, and statistically is an insignificant threat, but there you go. (so perhaps the psychological perspective is the primary mechanism at play here).

You're right. It would be best if they just eased back on the implementation. I don't care if it's the TSA or the airports doing it really. If things get better that be good, if things get worse that would be bad in terms of my perspective on travelling to the US.

As things stand now, the only way I'm going into the US is from Montreal down into Vermont. Any other way seems to sketchy to me.

In my country of Canada, flying from place to place within the country only requires walking past guards that don't do anything to you at the gate, and metal detectors. I haven't flown to different countries, so I'm sure I'm being too idealistic and naive on this subject, especially in terms of actual policy.