Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Rand Paul wants to choke the TSA. Really.

It seems a US lawmaker had enough after experiencing the TSA first hand...

"The Kentucky Republican introduced legislation (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77475.html) that would gut the Transportation Security Administration’s government-operated screening program and establish a passenger bill of rights. One bill would require that the mostly federalized program be turned over to private screeners and allow airports — with Department of Homeland Security approval — to select companies to handle the work."

"The TSA did not have an immediate comment."
Imagine that.

Surprisingly, self-proclaimed "security guru" Bruce Schneier, usually outspoken about being anti-TSA, badmouths the initiative... for some strange reasons. His blog post is worth a read. It's here (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/rand_paul_takes.html). Basically, Schneier says it won't work because market forces aren't "magic", and goes on to claim it doesn't matter who does the screening as long as the TSA and a frightened government make the rules... or something along those lines. Which is just plain wrong.

Here's also a closer look at Schneier's rambling post (http://snallabolaget.com/?p=2256), and why it makes no sense.

-SB-

It seems a US lawmaker had enough after experiencing the TSA first hand...

"The Kentucky Republican introduced legislation (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77475.html) that would gut the Transportation Security Administration’s government-operated screening program and establish a passenger bill of rights. One bill would require that the mostly federalized program be turned over to private screeners and allow airports — with Department of Homeland Security approval — to select companies to handle the work."

"The TSA did not have an immediate comment."
Imagine that.

Surprisingly, self-proclaimed "security guru" Bruce Schneier, usually outspoken about being anti-TSA, badmouths the initiative... for some strange reasons. His blog post is worth a read. It's here (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/rand_paul_takes.html). Basically, Schneier says it won't work because market forces aren't "magic", and goes on to claim it doesn't matter who does the screening as long as the TSA and a frightened government make the rules... or something along those lines. Which is just plain wrong.

Here's also a closer look at Schneier's rambling post (http://snallabolaget.com/?p=2256), and why it makes no sense.

-SB-

Schneier is correct, regardless of the above blog trying to promote who knows what and trying to make hay out of nothing.

Schneier is correct, regardless of the above blog trying to promote who knows what and trying to make hay out of nothing.

That's a matter of opinion. Rand Paul seems to think it will work - why is he wrong and Schneier correct?
Schneier's arguments are all built around the opinion that private security is the same as the TSA, when efforts and experience in most other countries tell a different story (with some exceptions, of course... ;) ).

Bids and competition decides which company gets the airport contract, and the contract would go out for another round after 2, 3 or 4 years... Whoever has the best results, the best service and the best price will get the deal. It's not "magic"... it's simple economics.

-SB-

Schneier's arguments are all built around the opinion that private security is the same as the TSA, when efforts and experience in most other countries tell a different story (with some exceptions, of course... ;) ).




People in the US departing airports with private security would tell you it's pretty much the same thing.

People in the US departing airports with private security would tell you it's pretty much the same thing.

It's hard to find stories of private security behaving like the TSA, both here and in general. With the TSA lying about the financial benefits (the GAO confirmed this), and a billion $ in potential savings, the choice should be clear.

-SB-

People in the US departing airports with private security would tell you it's pretty much the same thing.

As long as TSA is writing insane rules and requiring the use of pointless and invasive and pointlessly invasive technologies and screening protocols, it won't matter much at all who's actually conducting the screening. Call me when someone proposes a bill to ban nude-o-scopes, end the shoe carnival, or declare all US citizens members of Pre-Check.

It's hard to find stories of private security behaving like the TSA, both here and in general.

Complaints about SFO's Covenant contract personnel aren't hard to find. On some days, it seems they're just trying to out-TSA the TSA.

As long as TSA is writing insane rules and requiring the use of pointless and invasive and pointlessly invasive technologies and screening protocols, it won't matter much at all who's actually conducting the screening. .

Yeah, this.

And stories of SFO are all over here.

That's a matter of opinion. Rand Paul seems to think it will work - why is he wrong and Schneier correct?
Schneier's arguments are all built around the opinion that private security is the same as the TSA, when efforts and experience in most other countries tell a different story (with some exceptions, of course... ;) ).

Bids and competition decides which company gets the airport contract, and the contract would go out for another round after 2, 3 or 4 years... Whoever has the best results, the best service and the best price will get the deal. It's not "magic"... it's simple economics.

-SB-

All you have to do is look at SFO. It's privately run, and you still get the same circus you do at any TSA operated airport.

If TSA gave general guidelines and left it up to the contractors to implement and achieve the required results
in any way they saw fit (within reason), you'd have a point. However, TSA still sets the rules and the standards to be screened to. If TSA says that everyone must go thru the NoS, for example, then it doesn't if the worker is TSA or a contractor - you will go thru that NoS. The contractor's hands are tied.

Bottom line: it doesn't matter who the puppet is if the same idiot puppet master is pulling the strings.

On another note, why do we need a pax bill of rights? We already have THE Bill of Rights. :td: Get a clue, Rand.

The things that are wrong with TSA screeners and their sometimes petty and silly implementations of rules wouldn't change just because a private employer paid their salaries. Squeezing a profit out of it for a private company probably means fewer employees, lower wages and therefore a lower caliber of person patting you down. It could be worse.

The things that are wrong with TSA screeners and their sometimes petty and silly implementations of rules wouldn't change just because a private employer paid their salaries. Squeezing a profit out of it for a private company probably means fewer employees, lower wages and therefore a lower caliber of person patting you down. It could be worse.

You mean there's a lower caliber of people that could work at a privately own checkpoint than those TSA recruited from pizza boxes and gas pumps and doesn't require to have a high school diploma or GED? :rolleyes:

As long as TSA is writing insane rules and requiring the use of pointless and invasive and pointlessly invasive technologies and screening protocols, it won't matter much at all who's actually conducting the screening. Call me when someone proposes a bill to ban nude-o-scopes, end the shoe carnival, or declare all US citizens members of Pre-Check.

Agreed. I think that the screeners at SFO are slightly more professional, and come across as slightly more competent, than, say LAX or JFK, which never fail to be a complete circus. But they're 98% the same, as they should be, since they're all operating under the same ridiculous processes.

You mean there's a lower caliber of people that could work at a privately own checkpoint than those TSA recruited from pizza boxes and gas pumps and doesn't require to have a high school diploma or GED? :rolleyes:

Yes, some are more able than others even drawing from those ranks.

On another note, why do we need a pax bill of rights? We already have THE Bill of Rights. :td: Get a clue, Rand.

Because the TSA does not recognize The Bill of Rights. And we have gutless LEO's and courts who are charged with making sure that TBofRights is is honored.
If the Legal Branch of government did it's job we would not have the TSA or this discussion.

As long as TSA is writing insane rules and requiring the use of pointless and invasive and pointlessly invasive technologies and screening protocols, it won't matter much at all who's actually conducting the screening. Call me when someone proposes a bill to ban nude-o-scopes, end the shoe carnival, or declare all US citizens members of Pre-Check.

Agree 100% it doesn't matter who is executing draconian rules - the results are still draconian

All you have to do is look at SFO. It's privately run, and you still get the same circus you do at any TSA operated airport...

A couple of weeks ago Mrs. Fredd and I were eating lunch at the SFO mini-food court across from Gates 70-71 and right next to the TSA check point entry to the SFO domestic terminal.

We could hear very clearly as a Team San Francisco supervisor or trainer was giving a pep talk to a small group of employees. He warned them more than once "TSA is just looking for an excuse to get rid of us."

Despite my own preference both for the free market and decentralization, I have to admit that a situation in which private outfits feel they have to "out-TSA" the TSA isn't going to help IMHO.

As for us, our recent opt-out at SFO was handled decently but we've had a few less than enjoyable experiences over the years. We're more commonly transferring rather than originating there so I defer to others but I gather most people don't find it better than other airports.

On another note, why do we need a pax bill of rights? We already have THE Bill of Rights. :td: Get a clue, Rand.

THIS is the problem. If TSA's intrusive actions were both necessary and effective, few people would have an issue with what they are doing (aside from the moronic crap that some clerks do). The problem is their tactics are NEITHER necessary nor effective. Where I come from, intrusive searches that are not effective and not necessary are, by default, UNREASONABLE. Unreasonable searches by the government are unConstitutional. Simple.

Congress should DEMAND that TSA prove its actions are necessary, safe, effective, cost-effective, etc. The burden of proof lies with the agency, not with the citizens or the Judicial branch. Anything TSA cannot prove doesn't get funded. Simple.

Because the TSA does not recognize The Bill of Rights. And we have gutless LEO's and courts who are charged with making sure that TBofRights is is honored.

If the Legal Branch of government did it's job we would not have the TSA or this discussion.

I get your point, but disagree that the judicial branch is the proper place to solve these problem. It may be the last hope, but it isn't the best solution. Congress should sack up and do their job.

That's a matter of opinion. Rand Paul seems to think it will work - why is he wrong and Schneier correct?
Schneier's arguments are all built around the opinion that private security is the same as the TSA, when efforts and experience in most other countries tell a different story (with some exceptions, of course... ;) ).

It's hard to find stories of private security behaving like the TSA, both here and in general. With the TSA lying about the financial benefits (the GAO confirmed this), and a billion $ in potential savings, the choice should be clear.

SFO is exactly the reason Rand Paul is wrong and Schneier is correct. For example, when a US government employee asks me to 'say my name' to get on a flight, I can (and have) invoked my fifth amendment privilege not to answer questions that may incriminate me. At SFO, it is not clear to me if I can invoke that right - it's not a government agent interrogating me. :confused:

However much the TSA violates the Bill of Rights, the fact is, as agents of the US government, they are still legally bound to it at some point, and I hope that eventually the courts will hold them accountable. If all airport security is privatized... well, there are a lot of perfectly legal things private companies can require me to do as a condition of doing business (for example cavity searches), whereas when the government forces you to do them, it violates my rights.

I have had discussions with my US Rep's office, and he is strongly in favor of privatizing security (It seems to be a knee-jerk red herring Republican response in his case... and I say that as someone who generally votes Republican. ;) ) His staff claims that one benefit is if a private employee 'molests' you (e.g. with an improper patdown) it is easier to sue them, because government employees have more protections. But I really don't buy that argument; I don't see that the private agents at SFO have been sued for anything.

To people who claims private contractors will be the same as federal employees simply because DHS/TSA still writes the rules, nothing can be further from the truth.

Private contractors will try to out bid one another and the ways to do that is either providing better service, better cost, better efficiency, better service feedback, etc. This in turn gives private contractors who have won the contract to keep looking for ways to quicken the line, provide friendlier services, drive the cost of operation down, and take seriously customer feedback. This cycle of "economy force" might take awhile to be in effect, but this is still light years better than federal employees with no accountability, sky-rocketing salary/benefits/pensions.

The savings on taxpayer money alone will be worth it. By definition federal employees are gluttons when it comes to salary/benefits/pensions. Turning over to private contractors, the bureaucratic system will have no incentive to give private employees sky-rocketing salary/benefits. In fact, it will be up to the private contractors to add them as cost of operation in their bids, and since lower bids usually wins, these costs will be contained within reasonable levels as well.

Pre-9/11 the security guys are part-time employees making on average $7 an hour. Post-9/11 we have them making on average $50,000 based with the real cost at $75,000 per person with benefits and pensions. This has to stop.

SFO is exactly the reason Rand Paul is wrong and Schneier is correct. For example, when a US government employee asks me to 'say my name' to get on a flight, I can (and have) invoked my fifth amendment privilege not to answer questions that may incriminate me. At SFO, it is not clear to me if I can invoke that right - it's not a government agent interrogating me. :confused:

However much the TSA violates the Bill of Rights, the fact is, as agents of the US government, they are still legally bound to it at some point, and I hope that eventually the courts will hold them accountable. If all airport security is privatized... well, there are a lot of perfectly legal things private companies can require me to do as a condition of doing business (for example cavity searches), whereas when the government forces you to do them, it violates my rights.

I have had discussions with my US Rep's office, and he is strongly in favor of privatizing security (It seems to be a knee-jerk red herring Republican response in his case... and I say that as someone who generally votes Republican. ;) ) His staff claims that one benefit is if a private employee 'molests' you (e.g. with an improper patdown) it is easier to sue them, because government employees have more protections. But I really don't buy that argument; I don't see that the private agents at SFO have been sued for anything.

Actually, when it comes to Miranda rights, I believe that private contractors, hired by the government and acting on behalf of the government, are all considered government actors, and your Constitutional rights hold full force. These people may be employed by a private firm, but the private firm is still employed by the government to do a government job at a government facility, and none of that voids any part of your Constitutional rights.

However, this sort of thing is why the US government often hired "private security contractors" (i.e. paid mercenaries) to provide protection for important people in Iraq; since they were private employees and not actual US soldiers, they weren't bound by the UCMJ, and any illegal activities in which they might engage (such as massacring unarmed civilians in the middle of Baghdad) would have to be covered by civilian authorities. That process would take years, given the complex overlapping jurisdictions, and the war itself might be over before anyone were brought to trial!

Imagine such a situation at US airports, if TSA no longer had a force of 65,000 blue shirts waiting in the wings to immediately take over screening in the event of a private contractor scandal. Changing from one contractor to another would be a long process involving multiple bids, a complex government selection process, and a lengthy changeover period while the new contractor got up to speed.

I can imagine Pistole making a statement like this to the press: "Well, this man certainly seems to have violated the rules, but his company has declined to terminate him, and we have no authority to compel the company to terminate him, so we're really powerless in this situation. Sure, we could terminate the contract and find another company to operate security at that airport, but it would take 6 months and cost millions to have other contractors bid, and go through the selection process, and another 3 months to do a switchover. Besides, except for that one bad apple, the company is doing a great job and we couldn't be more pleased with their performance..."

However much the TSA violates the Bill of Rights, the fact is, as agents of the US government, they are still legally bound to it at some point, and I hope that eventually the courts will hold them accountable. If all airport security is privatized... well, there are a lot of perfectly legal things private companies can require me to do as a condition of doing business (for example cavity searches), whereas when the government forces you to do them, it violates my rights.

This is a complex issue and our politicians shouldn't treat it with platitudes. However, I'm not sure your viewpoint is correct. Contractors acting as agents of the government (following their rules) are still bound by the same Constitutional restrictions. Police, for example, cannot hire a contractor to search your house without a warrant.

The biggest question (to me at least) is who is pulling the strings. If there is an objective standard and a contractor does something that causes injury in order to meet said standard, the contractor can be sued. If TSA defines the actions, regardless of who carries them out, they are required to be Constitutional. This last part of course requires that somebody in Congress (or failing that, the Courts) does something about it.

To people who claims private contractors will be the same as federal employees simply because DHS/TSA still writes the rules, nothing can be further from the truth.

Private contractors will try to out bid one another and the ways to do that is either providing better service, better cost, better efficiency, better service feedback, etc. This in turn gives private contractors who have won the contract to keep looking for ways to quicken the line, provide friendlier services, drive the cost of operation down, and take seriously customer feedback. This cycle of "economy force" might take awhile to be in effect, but this is still light years better than federal employees with no accountability, sky-rocketing salary/benefits/pensions.

This SHOULD be the way it works. However, if the TSA is approving the contractors, I doubt these factors will matter one bit. I think the factor that will matter is how much the contractor is in lock step with TSA. Service, cost, efficiency are not in their lexicon. And besides, TSA has a motive to not have more efficient contractors doing the same job they are. Makes them look bad.

The problem is TSA's actions and Congress not doing anything to make sure every one of them is appropriate. This is where the fix needs to be.

IMO, once the proper actions and processes for short term compensatory measures are defined, it shouldn't matter (effectiveness-wise) who does the front line work. I believe contractors will do an equally good job with less long term cost. I'm 100% sure they can do a better job hiring good people and firing bad.

There seems to be some confusion...

- The TSA wouldn't pick out the contractor for the airport. The airport would.
- The government can't hire a private contractor to do illegal things. Neither can a private company (like an airport) hire a contractor to do illegal things. The comparison to UCMJ / Geneva is a little silly, since that wouldn't apply at all...
- the TSA / government would still define regulations. Government control of such things is the norm all over the world. That still leaves the contractor with a lot of room to maneuver. Oh, and the TSA can be sued, too...

-SB-

There seems to be some confusion...

- The TSA wouldn't pick out the contractor for the airport. The airport would.
- The government can't hire a private contractor to do illegal things. Neither can a private company (like an airport) hire a contractor to do illegal things. The comparison to UCMJ / Geneva is a little silly, since that wouldn't apply at all...
My point is, some procedures are illegal for government employees, whereas they would not be illegal for a private company to implement - you can always chose to not do business with the private company, whereas you can't escape the government. When I go to a private sports stadium or concert venue, and they require me to submit to a search/pat down by private security staff, there is no question of the 4th Amendment applying.

I think there is some gray area when the government write the rules and a private company enforces them. The 4th Amendment should apply, but it seems like it would be at least twice as hard to impose accountability - harder to pin down the legal issues, deniability, misdirection, passing the buck, etc. Sue the private company, and they say they are following the TSA policy. Sue the TSA and they say the private contractor is not following procedure. Want to see the procedure? Too bad. There's just one more excuse for the TSA to use.Oh, and the TSA can be sued, too...Apparently not in front of a jury, though...

Apparently not in front of a jury, though...

Let's hope that's about to change (http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/).

-SB-

There seems to be some confusion...

- The TSA wouldn't pick out the contractor for the airport. The airport would.
- The government can't hire a private contractor to do illegal things. Neither can a private company (like an airport) hire a contractor to do illegal things. The comparison to UCMJ / Geneva is a little silly, since that wouldn't apply at all...
- the TSA / government would still define regulations. Government control of such things is the norm all over the world. That still leaves the contractor with a lot of room to maneuver. Oh, and the TSA can be sued, too...

-SB-

Where is the confusion?

Point 1: You say TSA doesn't pick. I said they APPROVE. These are not mutually exclusive. I didn't notice that anyone disagreed with this.

One bill would require that the mostly federalized program be turned over to private screeners and allow airports — with Department of Homeland Security approval — to select companies

This SHOULD be the way it works. However, if the TSA is approving the contractors....

Point 2: The government cannot hire contractors to do illegal things. I agree. They cannot allow them to do illegal things under their purview either. I think we're in agreement here. I didn't notice that anyone disagreed with this.

Point 3a: the government defines regulations. I didn't notice that anyone disagreed with this.

Point 3b: Yes, the TSA can be sued. The confusion may be it interpreting my statement that a contractor can be sued to mean that the TSA cannot be sued.

If there is an objective standard and [if] a contractor does something that causes injury in order to meet said standard, the contractor can be sued.

Maybe I should have been more clear that private companies are easier to sue when they are the ones deciding what to do and how to do it.

The point is the impact of suing a private company is very different than suing the government's security empire. The government has endless pockets, can do rotten things, can claim immunity for people working in accordance with secret procedures, can play jurisdictional games, and exert influence, and do many other things. Private companies are severely limited in comparison.

Given that it is easier to sue them, there is more pressure for a private company to avoid things that they would get sued for. This is a good thing, IMO.

To people who claims private contractors will be the same as federal employees simply because DHS/TSA still writes the rules, nothing can be further from the truth.

Private contractors will try to out bid one another and the ways to do that is either providing better service, better cost, better efficiency, better service feedback, etc. This in turn gives private contractors who have won the contract to keep looking for ways to quicken the line, provide friendlier services, drive the cost of operation down, and take seriously customer feedback. This cycle of "economy force" might take awhile to be in effect, but this is still light years better than federal employees with no accountability, sky-rocketing salary/benefits/pensions.

The savings on taxpayer money alone will be worth it. By definition federal employees are gluttons when it comes to salary/benefits/pensions. Turning over to private contractors, the bureaucratic system will have no incentive to give private employees sky-rocketing salary/benefits. In fact, it will be up to the private contractors to add them as cost of operation in their bids, and since lower bids usually wins, these costs will be contained within reasonable levels as well.

Pre-9/11 the security guys are part-time employees making on average $7 an hour. Post-9/11 we have them making on average $50,000 based with the real cost at $75,000 per person with benefits and pensions. This has to stop.

This is all true in theory (and I couldn't agree more about the gluttony and lack of accountability that characterizes the Federal government workforce), but in practice TSA can -- and does (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm) -- substantially constrain private-sector screeners to as to severly limit their scope for such innovations.

For example, TSA requires the compensation of private screeners to be no lower than that of Federal screeners. And of course the procedures and equipment are the same. One key difference, which seems evident in San Francisco, is that the private screeners are more courteous than Federal screeners.

.......

That's a matter of opinion. Rand Paul seems to think it will work - why is he wrong and Schneier correct?
Schneier's arguments are all built around the opinion that private security is the same as the TSA, when efforts and experience in most other countries tell a different story (with some exceptions, of course... ;) ).

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Per his initial FT post, SnallaBolaget (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15177924-post362.html) is "a 10+ years security professional, having worked in everything from guard services to cargo companies".

As long as TSA is writing insane rules and requiring the use of pointless and invasive and pointlessly invasive technologies and screening protocols, it won't matter much at all who's actually conducting the screening.

^

Private actors with state power is the worst of both worlds.

To people who claims private contractors will be the same as federal employees simply because DHS/TSA still writes the rules, nothing can be further from the truth.

Private contractors will try to out bid one another and the ways to do that is either providing better service, better cost, better efficiency, better service feedback, etc. This in turn gives private contractors who have won the contract to keep looking for ways to quicken the line, provide friendlier services, drive the cost of operation down, and take seriously customer feedback. This cycle of "economy force" might take awhile to be in effect, but this is still light years better than federal employees with no accountability, sky-rocketing salary/benefits/pensions.

The savings on taxpayer money alone will be worth it. By definition federal employees are gluttons when it comes to salary/benefits/pensions. Turning over to private contractors, the bureaucratic system will have no incentive to give private employees sky-rocketing salary/benefits. In fact, it will be up to the private contractors to add them as cost of operation in their bids, and since lower bids usually wins, these costs will be contained within reasonable levels as well.

Pre-9/11 the security guys are part-time employees making on average $7 an hour. Post-9/11 we have them making on average $50,000 based with the real cost at $75,000 per person with benefits and pensions. This has to stop.SFO is proof that private contractors not only will not be better than the TSA but can in fact be far worse in terms of "customer service" than the TSA.

And don't know where you came up with the $7/hr figure, but look at the archives of sfgate.com for articles on security costs at SFO pre-9/11, and you'll see the cost overruns of the private security firm there is a scandal going back way before 2001

There seems to be some confusion...

- The TSA wouldn't pick out the contractor for the airport. The airport would.
- The government can't hire a private contractor to do illegal things. Neither can a private company (like an airport) hire a contractor to do illegal things. The comparison to UCMJ / Geneva is a little silly, since that wouldn't apply at all...
- the TSA / government would still define regulations. Government control of such things is the norm all over the world. That still leaves the contractor with a lot of room to maneuver. Oh, and the TSA can be sued, too...

-SB-

Right, they cannot allowed it. It's illegal. They will revoked the licensed. They don't have a contractor licensed. They could be arrested for that. It's not permitted. It's against the laws. Some of them who does not have a contractor licensed. This could be a fraudulent.