|
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 24218817)
And I've already admitted it was a rhetorical device, not a precise statistical analysis. :rolleyes:
My point, again, is that if more than 99.99%* of American citizens/CostCo customers/MasterCard holders/PTA members/Facebook users are not terrorists, then using citizenship, store membership, credit card status etc is an absurd way to identify who's a terrorist and who isn't. * Can we agree on >99.99%? Or do you want to argue that there are more than 31,610 people could apply to PreCheck and who are planning to target aircraft from a US airport? TSA misses about 70% of dangerous things going through checkpoints. If there are even 300 people actively trying to get through checkpoints with evil intent, ~210 of them would succeed. The thing is with big data, you literally collect EVERYTHING about a person's life and use it to create a picture. Target are masters of this, very accurately predicting things like when a woman is pregnant (admittedly, a much more common occurrence - therefore easier to create a profile of). If you mine all the data in everyone's life, you may WELL be able to find patterns that indicate a raised risk of terrorist activity - even in bizarre things such as particular eating habits (which may come from, say, suggestions on a terrorist message board, thus explaining them). I don't doubt for one second that large scale data mining can work. I seriously question whether the complete loss of privacy is worth it for a marginal improvement in safety. |
Originally Posted by AllieKat
(Post 24218907)
I'd absolutely agree it's less than .01% of people, yes :)
The thing is with big data, you literally collect EVERYTHING about a person's life and use it to create a picture. Target are masters of this, very accurately predicting things like when a woman is pregnant (admittedly, a much more common occurrence - therefore easier to create a profile of).
Originally Posted by AllieKat
(Post 24218907)
If you mine all the data in everyone's life, you may WELL be able to find patterns that indicate a raised risk of terrorist activity - even in bizarre things such as particular eating habits (which may come from, say, suggestions on a terrorist message board, thus explaining them). I don't doubt for one second that large scale data mining can work.
Old-fashioned intelligence work - starting from people or groups known to be associated with terrorism and following the links - is far more effective that mining all the data in every airline passenger's live looking for the needle in a haystack.
Originally Posted by AllieKat
(Post 24218907)
I seriously question whether the complete loss of privacy is worth it for a marginal improvement in safety.
|
Originally Posted by N1120A
(Post 24181672)
A good reason to get this through NEXUS.
if GE/etc dont already have this garbage, it could be expanded in future. |
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
(Post 24218966)
It's not only a much more common occurrence, but (in most cases) it's not something people are trying desperately to hide from Target or the gov't, so (a) a profile is easier to establish and (b) the women "found out" are not quite as secretive. Also, Target is significantly more competent at statistics than the TSA. :D
I don't think there's enough data to establish a profile. I don't think there are enough terrorists among the people being profiled (those who can apply for PreCheck) to get the numbers. Old-fashioned intelligence work - starting from people or groups known to be associated with terrorism and following the links - is far more effective that mining all the data in every airline passenger's live looking for the needle in a haystack. The loss of privacy is so enormous and the improvement in safety so small, there's no question. I agree with everything you said 100%, don't get me wrong. Any profile made would be... sketchy, at best. It'd have a high rate of false negatives and false positives due to lack of data. But it would still be better than nothing. I agree 100%, though, that it's a horrible idea and other strategies are much more effective. |
Originally Posted by Flaflyer
(Post 24186894)
But none of those recent terrorists went through an airport checkpoint, TSA or other, on the way to their terror attack.
In the past dozen years TSA has screened 700 million pax a year, or a total of 8 billion searches, which is more than the Earth’s population. Granted they did not search every individual person on Earth, and most of their customers are “repeat” customers. Many on this board have been screened hundreds if not thousands of times, and on their 1000th screening were found to be “Still NOT a terrorist.” TSA has screened 8 billion passengers and found ZERO terrorists. What does that math tell you? If we're talking about large scale disasters, the scenario that scares me is the guy who gets on a train with a suitcase full of explosives and sets them off under Penn Station. And truthfully, neither of those situations scares me much, since they are so unlikely to occur. Mike |
Never mind
|
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 24220380)
It tells me that you have touched upon one of the most important but overlooked issues with security: the next attack will not come on a plane. That one's done. Blowing up an aircraft would be a tragedy of immense proportions, but would not lead to the catastrophic losses that we saw on 9/11. And passengers are never going to let a hijacker take control of a plane again.
If we're talking about large scale disasters, the scenario that scares me is the guy who gets on a train with a suitcase full of explosives and sets them off under Penn Station. And truthfully, neither of those situations scares me much, since they are so unlikely to occur. Mike If anyone wanted to use an airplane as a weapon I think it is still possible. The events at ATL of insiders bringing weapons right through TSA's 20 layers of security proves that there is no such thing as a sterile area. The items needed to take control of the cabin and then breech the cockpit door could just as easily be brought in. Now for a more frightening possibility would be a small dirty nuke or for a bigger player an EMP weapon. Either one of those could really cause a problem even if only over a fairly small area. |
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 24220380)
the next attack will not come on a plane. That one's done.
If we're talking about large scale disasters, the scenario that scares me is the guy who gets on a train with a suitcase full of explosives and sets them off under Penn Station. I just saw a program on PBS about the sinking of the Costa Condordia. It appears it does not take much to sink a cruise ship by accident and might be far too easy for tewwowists to do on purpose. |
"TSA has screened 8 billion passengers and found ZERO terrorists. What does that math tell you?"
Don't let some kooky statistics fool you, TSA continues to give stupid people the illusion of safety, and that's what matters most. |
Originally Posted by AllieKat
(Post 24219083)
Do you have enough data on Target vs the TSA's competence to establish statistic significance? :)
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 24220380)
It tells me that you have touched upon one of the most important but overlooked issues with security: the next attack will not come on a plane. That one's done. Blowing up an aircraft would be a tragedy of immense proportions, but would not lead to the catastrophic losses that we saw on 9/11. And passengers are never going to let a hijacker take control of a plane again.
|
The answer clearly is to expand TSA to trains, office buildings, buses, city streets, large hotels, public facilities, cruise ships....
Someone's going to be making a LOT of money. |
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 24220380)
It tells me that you have touched upon one of the most important but overlooked issues with security: the next attack will not come on a plane. That one's done. Blowing up an aircraft would be a tragedy of immense proportions, but would not lead to the catastrophic losses that we saw on 9/11. And passengers are never going to let a hijacker take control of a plane again.
If we're talking about large scale disasters, the scenario that scares me is the guy who gets on a train with a suitcase full of explosives and sets them off under Penn Station. And truthfully, neither of those situations scares me much, since they are so unlikely to occur. Mike Only less intelligent, entrapped pseudo-terrorists get caught. Further, if it were going to happen, such as in a "security" checkpoint line or at the Mall of America, it would already have done so. |
"The answer clearly is to expand TSA to trains, office buildings, buses, city streets, large hotels, public facilities, cruise ships..."
I don't know. TSA tried that at the Savannah AMTRAK station and the outcry was so widespread they quickly did away with that plan. Maybe it's because the morons were groping people leaving the station, not entering, but it any case it was not continued. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1B3AubsTBo One viewer comment to that video still lingers in my mind, over a year later: "You Americans need to unionize...if they tried that crap on us here in Holland we wouldn't go to work in the morning...we'd shut the whole damn country down." |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:30 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.