The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Security Screening and Probability Denial

By on 12.2.10 @ 6:07AM

We know what we need to do to make ourselves safer but we’re in denial about what we know.

“Probability is the very guide of life.”
— Joseph Butler, 18th century theologian

The Transportation Security Administration’s controversial passenger screening policies demonstrate just how distorted our priorities have become. We have maneuvered ourselves into being more terrified of being accused of racism than we are of death.

Political correctness is the equivalent of a societal lobotomy. Political correctness prevents us from using basic logic and common sense when we make large and small choices. We know what we need to do to make ourselves safer but we’re in denial about what we know.

As John Smith, a columnist for Las Vegas Review-Journal, asked in a recent column, “Patting down my disabled daughter makes us safer?” The answer to that question is no, and everyone knows the answer is no. The obvious absurdity of our policies is the backdrop of why so many travelers are frustrated and angry.

How ridiculous is it to pretend that all passengers have an equal probability of carrying weapons or explosives? Our rejection of profiling is a rejection of behavior that we use so much we lose sight of how essential it is in our lives. The TSA is behaving as if there are no outward signs of a passenger’s likelihood of committing a terrorist act.

Our policy makers are pretending that probability is irrelevant in making choices and designing policies. Taking into account probability is second nature to any normal person. If probability didn’t matter, you might as well go fishing on dry land as on a lake or river.

When we refuse to consider probability we severely reduce the probability of achieving our objectives—in this case preventing the violent deaths of innocent people. Refusal to consider probability in making choices is a symptom of insanity. A strong intuitive sense of probability is an indicator of intelligence.

Political correctness is making us look like fools who don’t even have an instinct for self-preservation. We demonstrate a lack of seriousness. Is that a message we want to send to our enemies?

We do not have unlimited resources at our disposal to combat terrorism (or any other objective, for that matter). Resources we devote to preventing low probability problems are unavailable for high probability problems. There is no free lunch and there is no free PC. Patting down 80-year-old ladies and three-year-old children is actually making us less safe.

Even animals, whether by instinct or experience, consider probability. Predators look for prey where they have had previous success. That’s where the probability for future success is highest. Taking probability into account is essential to their survival.

The public’s strong reaction to the latest TSA policies goes beyond scanners and body searches. Nobody appreciates being inconvenienced or feeling violated. What makes it especially infuriating is feeling that it is not necessary or useful and that there are more effective alternatives staring us right in the face.

The traveling public has shown admirable patience with screening procedures to date. People are far more tolerant of necessity than they are of stupidity. Much of the travelling public seems to have reached the conclusion that the new security measures are more the result of cowardice than necessity.

About the Author

Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (33) |

Booger | 12.2.10 @ 6:18AM

From the desk of Janet Napolitano:

Dear Dr. Ross,

While I appreciate your concern over the matter of having your daughter patted down, I must assure that such precautions are absolutely essential for your security when traveling by airliner. In fact, these measures have been so successful that we are going to implement them in a number of other areas as well.

As you are probably well aware, there have been attempts recently by individuals to detonate car bombs in Times Square in New York City and Portland, Oregon. If you will check with your local state officials, you will doubtlessly discover that driving is a privilege, not a "right". Thus, we here at Homeland Security will soon be swearing thousands of new TSA agents authorized to make random stops along highways and city streets, who will then use enhanced pat downs to make sure that you have no bombs or other destructive devices within your vehicle.

We anticipate that this procedure will be viable and effective in stopping terrorists in all forms of transportation, including planes, trains and automobiles. Furthermore, it has been brought to my attention that in many countries there is a problem with terrorists who simply walk around on foot. Hence we will soon be implementing the sidewalk police plan. If approached by a TSA agent while on your daily stroll or jog, please be prepared to assume the position, turn your head, and cough twice. If you co-operate fully it should be over fairly quickly. As the old Victorians used to say, just lie back and think of England. It is, after all, your patriotic duty.

Please instruct your daughter, wife, etc. that it is their patriotic duty to submit to these searches as well whenever I or any member of the TSA sees fit. And do remember, failure to comply WILL land you in prison, where I can assure you the searches will be even more thorough (though perhaps not much more so).

Thank you for your co-0peration, and be prepared to show your papers at all times when traveling.

Sincerely,

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/

Joedoc| 12.2.10 @ 6:43AM

If a candidate for president said they were against political correctness, for profiling where appropriate, would get us out of the U.N, in favor of term limits and would stick to they're word, they would win in a landslide.

Anthony| 12.2.10 @ 9:32PM

I don't know about that, this is a country that elected Obama. A majority of people actually took time out of their busy days to vote for him. I've lost all hope in the intelligence of American voters.

Appleby| 12.2.10 @ 7:05AM

People are already responding by ceasing to fly when they can travel by other means; make the other means more difficult, and they will drive. Lots of us will stay home. This may inspire the airlines to tighten up their own security and by the way reverse the Cattle Car Trend that has made flying considerably less pleasant than taking the Greyhound.

However, do keep in mind that the people implementing this airport procedure are the same people selling lottery tickets and telling people that they actually have a chance to win $100,000,000 for a $3 ticket.

Nunya| 12.2.10 @ 6:50PM

I will drive up to 12 hours before I even consider flying. This false prophet of "security" has reached the level of the absurd, feeling up grandma and some 4-year old child. It's absolutely ridiculous, and we are no safer for it.

Add to that the cost of flying, the miniature seats on most planes and the lack of legroom (I'm 6'4"), the "baggage fees", the lack of food, etc., I'm far more comfortable in my own car sipping on a Coke driving down the highway.

Louis Jenkins| 12.2.10 @ 8:44AM

I am truly amazed that people actually line up for their pat-down. And Booger's story is not that far fetched. Other forms of public transportation are on TSAs wish list. Have you had enough yet America? Or will we continue to roll over, or bend over, for more of the same treatment?

JmsA| 12.2.10 @ 3:06PM

"I am truly amazed that people actually line up for their pat-down."

They're conditioning us for the final clamp down.

Intelligent Design| 12.2.10 @ 9:05AM

From the day JFK announced the goal of putting a man on the moon, to having a man step on the moon, took 8 years. A huge accomplishment. It has been over 9 years since 9/11/01 and the federal government has failed miserably to use modern technology (and common sense) to profile passengers. The functions of the TSA should be turned over to the airlines, who could quickly allow passengers to register with them. I for one would be happy to answer questions such as my SSN, my DOB, driver license, gym membership :) , where was a born, my residence, place of employment, whether I have a criminal record, age, religion, and race. I'd be happy to provide fingerprints and an iris scan. Then when I arrived at the airport I can look into the little screen and be cleared for takeoff, without further ado. The airlines could borrow a bit from a company such as Fair Isaac, which does credit scoring for banks, or from the 3 major credit rating companies.

The TSA and federal government are looking for the wrong people. They should be looking for young male Muslims originally from Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc., or as Kojak used to say to his underlings, "and like that". Remember that 99.9% of all terrorist attacks over the past few decades have been the work of Muslims.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.2.10 @ 9:35AM

Doctor Ross,
Your column is by far the clearest, most meaningful thought I have yet seen on this subject.

It gave me an AH HAH moment as well.
(speaking of probabilities)
Now I know where Obama is going to get his vaunted "National Civilian Police Force".

Please see my comment on the Quin Hillyer column today. ( 2+2 =4 QED)

Redstateboy| 12.2.10 @ 9:46AM

our TSA Airport screening process makes about as much sense and is as absurd as the traffic chicks directing non-existent traffic on the empty streets of Pyongyang. What else can you point to other than the simple derangement of Liber-ulism.

RedStateGeezer| 12.2.10 @ 11:24AM

Earlier this week, I had the dubious pleasure of visiting the Social Security offices in our local (pol name deleted) Federal Building. Four armed guards operating metal detectors managed to prevent me from entering the building with my combination penknife/nailfile. This measure of safety has been provided since the Oklahoma City bombing; had it been in place there and then, it would have prevented NOTHING!

carolinem| 12.2.10 @ 1:03PM

So long as people passively go along with this nonsense and continue to fly, it will continue. Not one Republican made this an election issue, and you hear nothing about this issue from any Republican elected official -- they went along with the recent regulation amendment to make themselves exempt from enhanced searches.

John Q Public| 12.2.10 @ 1:28PM

So the right wants to replace one form of tyranny with another. It's the old Hegelian dialectic at work: Thesis -- terrorism, Antithesis -- invasive security searches, transcendence -- state permission to fly based on some bureaucrat's opinion of your status.


Profiling is nothing more than the state demanding to know the purpose of your travel. Shades of the Soviet Union; what's next? Permission to travel?!


Here's a solution: Armed pilots behind locked cockpit doors. An air marshal on every flight. And if a citizen wants to pass a background check and some training, allow him to fly armed to further enhance security. Stage coach travel was very dangerous. There was an armed "shotgun" rider and most passengers were armed. A free people defend themselves; a subjugated people have guardians who demand submission to searches and questioning into your private affairs.

John Navratil| 12.2.10 @ 2:09PM

John Q Public,

I think you oversimplify when you state that "profiling is nothing more than the state demanding to know the purpose of your travel." Profiling is separating signal from noise. You wish to amplify the signal and attenuate the noise not to know the reason for travel, except as the reason to travel is to bring the plane down. No one cares why you are flying to Detroit.

To hell with the old Soviet Union. What we have today is gaining permission to travel. Just ask Pistole who unequivocally state that no one gets on the plane without going through security (oh, except Congressmen and, now, pilots who can crash the plane anytime they want to).

Other than that, I like your solution.

John Q Public| 12.2.10 @ 2:43PM

>> I think you oversimplify when you state that "profiling is nothing more than the state demanding to know the purpose of your travel."

John Q Public| 12.2.10 @ 2:50PM

>> I think you oversimplify when you state that "profiling is nothing more than the state demanding to know the purpose of your travel."

And the income tax was only supposed to apply to the top 3% of incomes. The polite term is "mission creep"; the accurate term is "galloping totalitarianism".

In order to accomplish your "amplify the signal and attenuate the noise" you must submit to a mandatory interview with a state flunky. Best be on your toes and be careful not to commit a "face crime".

"The people have been too submissive; we have been too submissive." - Ron Paul

The real problem is that we all want to appear reasonable, so we make up excuses for the destruction of our liberty.

John Navratil| 12.2.10 @ 2:03PM

There are argument to be made that the current TSA procedures actually makes us less safe.

Every dollar spent groping granny is a dollar which cannot be spent finding a terrorist. If you argue that this determination cannot be made without the granny-grope, you have missed the point of this article.

It should be noted that driving by car is much more dangerous than flying. People are choosing to drive for several reasons. The topic of the day is that they don't wish to be seen nude or groped. But the time delay imposed by these security procedures make it more practical to drive three hours for a business meeting than to fly a regional airline. The more people choose to drive over flying, the more they are at risk.

Finally, I don't mind if (the rhetorical) you don't mind being denuded or groped. I mind that you mind that I do. There is no "high risk" airline that I can choose to fly.

John Galt| 12.2.10 @ 2:06PM

I'm not an expert in counterterrorism, international affairs, or the psychology of war, but I always thought that John Travolta's little speech at the end of the movie "Swordfish" had merit:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley: War? Who are we at war with?
Gabriel: Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.
----------------------------------------------------------------
That movie was released in June of 2001. That line was the very first thing I thought of as I saw the first tower fall.

LiveFreeOrDie| 12.2.10 @ 2:16PM

"The traveling public has shown admirable patience with screening procedures to date."

That's the problem right there isn't it?

GENE HAUBER| 12.2.10 @ 3:34PM

ISLAM IS THE ENEMY.
ISLAM IS THE ENEMY.

WE KNOW THIS, BUT OUR "courageous" leaders CONTINUE TO LIE, LIE, LIE TO US AND I CANNOT, FOR THE LIFE OF ME, FATHOM WHY EXCEPT FOR ABJECT COWARDICE.
THE NEXT TIME ISLAM STRIKES AND ONE PERSON IS KILLED, WE SHOULD MARCH ON WASHINGTON AND LYNCH JANET NAPOLITANO, THEN ERIC HOLDER, THEN OBAMA.
ONLY THEY HAVE "THE HAMMER" AGAINST ISLAM AND THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO USE IT AGAINST THE PEOPLE THEY HAVE SWORN (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH) TO PROTECT.

LET'S RID OURSELVES OF THEM

Pat| 12.2.10 @ 4:13PM

Another of these “why are we being so stupid?” essays. But we’ve always been like that, it’s sort of an American tradition. During WWI, the German embassy in Washington took out ads in the New York Times warning Americans against sailing on ocean liners. German submarines couldn’t always be certain whether their target was an enemy ship carrying war goods and deserving of a torpedo or an innocent ship from a neutral country.

Washington didn’t intervene despite the warnings, Americans went right ahead and sailed, the Lusitania went down with a loss of 1,200 passengers, 123 of them Americans. Captain Turner, the Lusitania’s skipper, didn’t zig-zag in his course so he was blamed, with a young Winston Churchill leading the lynch mob. The Lusitania was hauling war supplies to England but no one told the Americans that – Winston knew it but thought the American deaths might bring us into the war.

Jump forward to Pearl Harbor and 68 civilians died in the Japanese attack. We knew Hawaii was vulnerable to a sneak attack, our military strategists had even written a paper on it, but the suspected attack was supposed to hit the Philippines or Singapore, anywhere but Pearl Harbor. And the Japanese bombs and machine guns didn’t differentiate military from civilians, plus the Americans killed a few with friendly fire. Was it arrogance or overconfidence – and are we being arrogant or overconfident today? Our politicians, then and now, will always be in “reaction mode” – they’ll defend against previous enemy tactics not future ones.

Wanding disabled daughters or grandmothers from Boise with hip implants is supposed to reassure us that “everything is under control” – we aren’t taking any chances but we’re also not compromising our great American principles of “everyone, regardless of race, creed or color, is equal under the law”. The politicians would like us to believe that and many of us also wish to believe that nonsense. But history tells us we will quickly compromise those same lofty principles when enough innocents have died, we’ll be profiling among other actions once the blood price is paid – and then we’ll read essays screaming the accusation “why are we acting like Nazis?” – go figure.

tdiinva| 12.2.10 @ 4:24PM

As usual lefty John Q, has it backwards. It is the TSA procedures that most resemble a totalitarian state not a system of pre-clearing people to travel by air. I can imagine the outrage of John Q if the evil Boosh administration was feeling people up and/or broadcasting their privates around the airport. Only a totalitarian minded organization would come up with the kind of solution to the airport security problem that we have today.

You want to know what would be a more effective and totally passive screening system? Dogs. The BATF, DEA, and police and military EOD teams all use dogs to find drugs and explosives. Sniffer dogs are darn near 100% effective in finding contraband. For the cost of one porno-scanner you go train and deploy 50-100 dogs for this mission. Almost any dog will do but scent hounds and birddogs make the best bomb detectors and they are generally non-intimidating, friendly breeds.

The sociology and culture of our potential bombers add to the effectiveness of using dogs to screen. The bomber will be already full adrenalin when he gets to the airport and will be put off by a dog. Trained observers can then focus in on potential and actual threats instead of granny and five year olds.

GW| 12.2.10 @ 7:21PM

You might want to reread John Q's argument. He is against the scanners, and against profiling. He is for armed passengers in planes (with background checks, of course) to deter hijacking attempts.

Not very "left-winged" in my opinion.

tdiinva| 12.3.10 @ 8:58AM

Good news: You have me there. I apologize to John Q and the readers.

Bad news. Guns stop hijackers not bombers. We still need an effective screening method for explosives. We need to profile and use dogs to find the explosives.

Wayne | 12.2.10 @ 4:31PM

Excellent point. I equate this to the concern about waterboarding 3 known terrorists. We do not want the US to be engaged in torture even if it is not really torture and may save thousands of lives.

However it IS ok to kill using drones ordinary citizens of Pakistan, because a terrorist may be among the crowd.

I ask liberals all the time why they don't want to impeach Obama for using these drones, and they just say, we are in a war. I ask them, why are in the war. They say to stop the terrorists. I ask if killing civilians is ok to stop terrorists but waterboarding a known terrorists is not ok to stop terrorists?

They then will go off on a rant about Bush.

Nunya| 12.2.10 @ 7:03PM

Absolutely spot on. Good post.

Dave| 12.2.10 @ 7:49PM

Years ago, Archie Bunker and Meathead had a similar conversation about airplane hijackers. Archuie's solution: give everybody who boards the plane a gun. A hijacker stands up and tries to take over the plane and he's looking at 100+ gun barrels pointed his way. Overkill, perhaps, but far more effective than effective than feeling up buxom 24-year-old blondes.

gary siebel| 12.2.10 @ 11:35PM

Unfortunately, the probability argument wont fly. Tell it to the Irish girl with the Muslim boyfriend who packed her bags for her. As soon as some group is allowed a pass, that will be the group they try to infiltrate, so everyone must suffer until Islam matures as a religion and defeats the maniacs themselves. Considering we are in the era of Muslim Crusades, and how long the Christian Crusades lasted, it could be a long wait.
The answer is to stop flying, lazy asses. Either that or -- here's a guaranteed solution -- everyone must fly naked.

Intelligent Design| 12.3.10 @ 5:34AM

A terrorist could easily walk into any airport, get in line with 100 others, and detonate a bomb. Nothing has been done to prevent this from happening.

DMH Pendragon| 12.3.10 @ 11:52AM

The airport security solution the government crooks don't want you to know about. Watch the video and pass it on.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html

In Russia & many other countries they use bomb sniffing dogs, at the Pentagon again bomb sniffing dogs, the military uses bomb sniffing dogs because they are the best defense against a multitude of bomb material. So please explain to me why in the world TSA is groping children and old ladies? This of course is a strictly rhetorical question. The answer is that the government is just starting to restrict free travel.
DMH

Just a quote so everyone knows who he is. “ I will stand with the Muslims, if the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Barack Hussein Obama, The Audacity of Hope

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
IN GOD WE TRUST

NJK| 12.3.10 @ 6:41PM

I compare this Obama regime to Jim Jones and The Peoples Temple. I think he is a cult leader, and the left is his cult. We know how that ended don't we.
Look at these photos and compare them to the videos and photos you have seen of Americans including your poor daughter.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Just another bomb-plotting jihadist yelling “Allahu akbar!”
http://michellemalkin.com/2010...../#comments
Here is an article about Jim Jones. I didn't know he was nothing but a marxist with ties to some prominent people in the Democratic Party. Scary.
http://www.resistnet.com/profi.....-aid-harry

More Articles by Ron Ross

More Articles From A Further Perspective

The Loss of Trust

June 18, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

When Did Matty Tell Hatty?

June 17, 2013 | Frank Schell

Liberalism Is Bankrupt

June 14, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Endless War’s Pin-Up Girl

June 13, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

The Role of the Federal Government

June 12, 2013 | Lisa Fabrizio

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/02/security-screening-and-probabi

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.