Examiner.com: New RAND report finds TSA risk calculation numbers don't add up
Dec 15, 2012, 5:22 am
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kettle with Kryptonium Medallion Tags
Posts: 10,296
Examiner.com: New RAND report finds TSA risk calculation numbers don't add up
First, here is the link to the RAND report discussed in the article:
RAND Corporation
Homeland Security & Defense Center
Modeling Terrorism Risk to the Air Transportation System: An Independent Assessment of TSA's Risk Management Analysis Tool and Associated Methods
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012953351
ISBN: 978-0-8330-7685-4
And here is some reporting about the report from Cynthia Hodges:
Examiner:
New report finds TSA risk calculation numbers don't add up
December 13, 2012
Here is a short quote:
RAND Corporation
Homeland Security & Defense Center
Modeling Terrorism Risk to the Air Transportation System: An Independent Assessment of TSA's Risk Management Analysis Tool and Associated Methods
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012953351
ISBN: 978-0-8330-7685-4
And here is some reporting about the report from Cynthia Hodges:
Examiner:
New report finds TSA risk calculation numbers don't add up
December 13, 2012
Here is a short quote:
A new report by RAND finds that a Risk Management Analysis Tool designed to test the effectiveness of TSA airport security efforts is severely limited, but not completely useless.
and another:However, the RAND report identified several limitations of the Boeing RMAT model. In calculating risks, several indicators are identified as variables that can't be precisely estimated or measured. RAND researchers concluded:
"Suffice it to say, however, that portions of the model attempt to parameterize quite specific features of terrorists’ decision criteria, including specification of their risk tolerance, preferences, knowledge, and learning. Such RMAT variables are important in the model but require precision beyond what intelligence or academic research can credibly provide."
One important limitation of the RMAT tool identified in the report is its failure to account for important psychological and symbolic components of terrorist attacks.
Researchers identified several RMAT that just don't add up. For instance, RMAT calculations predicted that an increased presence of federal air marshals would result in higher hijacker success rates -- a result that researchers said is hard to understand.
"Suffice it to say, however, that portions of the model attempt to parameterize quite specific features of terrorists’ decision criteria, including specification of their risk tolerance, preferences, knowledge, and learning. Such RMAT variables are important in the model but require precision beyond what intelligence or academic research can credibly provide."
One important limitation of the RMAT tool identified in the report is its failure to account for important psychological and symbolic components of terrorist attacks.
Researchers identified several RMAT that just don't add up. For instance, RMAT calculations predicted that an increased presence of federal air marshals would result in higher hijacker success rates -- a result that researchers said is hard to understand.
Dec 15, 2012, 6:46 am
#2
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
1) FAMS are armed with guns.
2) More FAMS on planes means more guns on planes.
3) "As we all know", "it is common knowledge", "it is a widely accepted fact", (in other words, most people believe this even though it's utter BS and has no basis whatsoever in fact), anyone with a gun is more likely to have that gun taken away from them by a Bad Guy and used against them than to successfully use the gun in self-defense, and anyone with a gun is an inherently violent, evil person who will eventually commit crimes with his gun.
Hence, more FAMS on planes equals higher hijacker success rates, as those armed FAMS either hijack planes themselves or have their guns taken away from them by Evil Bwown Muswim Tewwowists Who Want to Kill Us All.
The logic is inescapable. It's utter nonsense, but utterly inescapable.
Dec 15, 2012, 10:02 pm
#3
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Oh, that part is easy to explain.
1) FAMS are armed with guns.
2) More FAMS on planes means more guns on planes.
3) "As we all know", "it is common knowledge", "it is a widely accepted fact", (in other words, most people believe this even though it's utter BS and has no basis whatsoever in fact), anyone with a gun is more likely to have that gun taken away from them by a Bad Guy and used against them than to successfully use the gun in self-defense, and anyone with a gun is an inherently violent, evil person who will eventually commit crimes with his gun.
Hence, more FAMS on planes equals higher hijacker success rates, as those armed FAMS either hijack planes themselves or have their guns taken away from them by Evil Bwown Muswim Tewwowists Who Want to Kill Us All.
The logic is inescapable. It's utter nonsense, but utterly inescapable.
1) FAMS are armed with guns.
2) More FAMS on planes means more guns on planes.
3) "As we all know", "it is common knowledge", "it is a widely accepted fact", (in other words, most people believe this even though it's utter BS and has no basis whatsoever in fact), anyone with a gun is more likely to have that gun taken away from them by a Bad Guy and used against them than to successfully use the gun in self-defense, and anyone with a gun is an inherently violent, evil person who will eventually commit crimes with his gun.
Hence, more FAMS on planes equals higher hijacker success rates, as those armed FAMS either hijack planes themselves or have their guns taken away from them by Evil Bwown Muswim Tewwowists Who Want to Kill Us All.
The logic is inescapable. It's utter nonsense, but utterly inescapable.