Newsstand - The TSA, Mineta, and a movement to end the madness

I'm not sure if blogs count as "in the news" but there's a real movement afoot on the web to make a stand over the silliness that is airport security (hassle, infringement on liberty, without making us any safer).

Instapundit (http://www.instapundit.com/archives/002942.php#002942) is spearheading a campaign to impeach Norm Mineta.

Laura Crane (http://lauracrane.blogspot.com/2002_08_04_lauracrane_archive.html#80043260) has a piece on being felt up by airport security.

Counterspin has thoughts (http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2002_07_28_counterspin_archive.html#79511146) on the massive screwup that is the Transportation Security Agency.

There's a piece in the London Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$HVUIBMGD2Q2F5QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/opinion/2002/08/10/do1002.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/08/10/ixopinion.html) on just how absurd it's gotten.

It's time to do something. (Frankly, I'm trying to, by printing Impeach Norm Mineta bumper stickers (http://neat.blogspot.com/2002_08_01_neat_archive.html#80099204) that I'm selling at cost -- but if the mention is judged commerical or self-serving, I'll remove it.)



[This message has been edited by gleff (edited 08-13-2002).]

I'll take a dozen, please.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by gleff:
It's time to do something. (Frankly, I'm trying to, by printing Impeach Norm Mineta bumper stickers (http://neat.blogspot.com/2002_08_01_neat_archive.html#80099204) that I'm selling at cost -- but if the mention is judged commerical or self-serving, I'll remove it.)</font>

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry


[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 08-14-2002).]

Both of you have provided numerous criticisms of the TSA. Perhaps you can educate all of us by offering your solution. I'm sure everyone here is most anxious to read about it.

I actually do offer solutions in a long-ish article available here (http://www.americasfuture.org/viewBrainwash.cfm?pubid=103).

I'm impressed. Your article is excellent.

Bruce

Mine is quite simple:

Go back to pre-11 Sept. security.

No one is going to hijack an aircraft in the US with a knife ever again. Stop the guns, stop the bombs and stop "random searches" of passengers. Pass people thru the magnetometer, pass luggage thru the x-ray machine. No alarm? No wand! No pat-down! No nothing!!! Nothing amiss on the x-ray? Go about your business. Something doesn't look quite right? Ask permission to take a closer look. When there's a bomb detection machine that isn't wrong almost as often as it is right, put the checked baggage through that too.

"Security" needs to focus on real threats instead of wasting our time trying to prevent a scenario that will never happen again.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by trav2000:
Both of you have provided numerous criticisms of the TSA. Perhaps you can educate all of us by offering your solution. I'm sure everyone here is most anxious to read about it.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I read your article fully. However, I fail to see where you make a single proposal for airline security. You quote numerous individuals and you suggest political changes. But, where is your solution? Is your point that the United States should stop all foreign aid and involvement and therefore no one will have a bone to pick with us anymore? Please tell me that your solution isn't that simple.

While I haven't finished it yet, there's a wonderful (so far anyway) article on security in the current issue of Atlantic Monthly. It discusses the obvious failures of the current "improved" security measures and what should be done instead. I'd highly recommend taking a look as this appears to be an interest of yours.

Spiff,

Your comment that explosives-detection machines are wrong "almost" as often as they are right is too generous! Consider the following analysis:

Let's suppose that these machines detect 99% of explosives in bags and report false alarms only 1% of the time. Then, let's assume that one bag in a thousand contains explosives (obviously this is way too high, but let's use it to illustrate my point).

Then, for every 1,000,000 bags passing through, the machines will correctly detect 990 of the expected 1000 bombs. (They will miss 10 bombs, but that's another issue entirely!) They will also falsely report 9990 bombs in the 999,000 bomb-free bags. In other words, false alarms will outnumber legitimate alarms by slightly more than 10 to 1!

Real life is even worse than this illustration. The number of real bombs is, of course, much less than one in a thousand. And the percentage of false alarms is much higher than 1% (some say 5%). When the vast majority of alarms are found to be false -- as is inevitable -- the security personnel, being only human, will eventually ignore them.

What a complete waste of time and money.

Bruce

letiole,

I couldn't put down that article. I read it all the way through the day it arrived. And it is wonderful. It should be required reading for all government officials with "security" responsibilities.

Bruce

The problem with all these articles, thoughts, and so on is that they ignore the political reality that exists today. Infrequent travelers, who make up the vast majority of the public, want these security measures and they want the TSA. They vote. Therefore, their reps will listen to them so that they can get reelected.

You will note that even the most anti-big government voices in Congress did not oppose the TSA. Why? Because they want to get reelected.

Now, you can say, and correctly, that the once or twice a year fliers don't make any money for the airlines. It doesn't matter.

As long as most people want the security, it will stay. So, plan on it sticking around, whether we like it or not.

mdtony: It's not a matter of getting rid of security all together. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. It's more about the way it's being done. One suggestion that I know we've discussed here before and that was mentioned in the Atlantic article I referred to is how often it's happened that someone has slipped by a security a check point and now the entire airport is evacuated, included folks sitting in planes ready to depart, and rescreened. That's ridiculous and will keep everyone from flying if it continues to happen. The solution to that, which is in place at airports in other countries (SIN comes to mind) is screening at the individual gates. That way if there is a breach it is confined to a very small area and the rest of the airport can continue to operate.

Edited for spelling

[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 08-13-2002).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by letiole:
[b]mdtony: The solution to that, which is in place at airports in other countries (SIN comes to mind) is screening at the individual gates. That way if there is a breach it is confined to a very small area and the rest of the airport can continue to operate.

That's fine if you have gates that can be isolated. My experiences in JFK, LAX, ORD, DFW, etc. are quite the opposite. The vast majority of gates are clustered in piers. Calculate the cost of refitting all of these terminals. While I do agree with your point, the implementation of this would be years away at a minimum.

Norm is around for the long run. He is GWB's "Token" Democrat on the cabinet and he is a known evil. Why get rid of him and have to listen to Daschle complain even more?

Plus, he can take the fall when this nonsense proves to be a monumental waste of money.

Put Airport security back to the way it was. Give the security nitwits no power, it is not needed.

The best line of Air Defense we have now are the other passengers. If a hijacker tries to take over a plane, they will be beaten into submission Quickly.

gleff: you will have to crack the skull of numb George "I am not Herbert Hoover" etc.

Do you think this is possible?

They are committed in the long run to screwing airlines, they just won't phrase it that way.

My only minor, guilty, pleasure, is realising how many of the screwees voted for this clod.

Fire away, Karl Rove wannabes. At least your hero has a few extra brain cells to toss around!

Are enough members of the public concerned enough to put their money where their mouths are and form a Political Action Committee?

The bumper stickers are a good idea, too.

See "Balanced Airport Security PAC?"
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/Forum11/HTML/007452.html

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Infrequent travelers, who make up the vast majority of the public, want these security measures and they want the TSA. They vote.</font>

Given low voter turnout, indifference to politics, low levels of voter information, and reelection rates that reach 98% some years in the House, I think you're fooling yourself if you blame/credit infrequent travelers for getting their elected representative to determine the set of moronic rules put into place by the TSA.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by letiole:
... article on security in the current issue of Atlantic Monthly. ... </font>

The article online. (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/09/mann.htm)

"The only ideas I've heard that make any sense are reinforcing the cockpit door and getting the passengers to fight back."

That's about the size of it. The rest of the horse@#$% that the TSA has inflicted upon us is nothing more than a giant albatross of "random security" weighting us down.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

We discuss this as if the airport security measures are about preventing airport terrorism. They aren't. They are about appearing to act, they are about calming the public, they are about image and show and reassurance, the U S Big Stick. We whom these measures inconvenience instead of reassure are in the minority.

Sylvia

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
Given low voter turnout, indifference to politics, low levels of voter information, and reelection rates that reach 98% some years in the House, I think you're fooling yourself if you blame/credit infrequent travelers for getting their elected representative to determine the set of moronic rules put into place by the TSA. </font>

The folks in Congress look at the polls, and they see that people want these things in place. Do they go and interview folks to see if it's something they really want? No, they just look at the results of the polls.

As long as the Aunt Millies and Uncle Bobs of the world want this stuff, and answer positively in the polls about it, you can count on it being around.

What happened last September, took the attackers years to plan and execute.

The point of the TSA critics is that if the same type of attack is to be prevented, security is looking in the wrong place. Real security is trying to find the attacker, rather than the weapon. The place to look is flight training cross referenced with immigration. When somone on that list shows up at an airport.....

Having said that, the chances of the same type of attack being successful have been greatly diminished. Most of the resource being put into airports should be placed onto trying to find the next attack. This takes the type of intelligence effort that the US has not been good at performing. (Invasion of Kuwait, Fall of Iron curtain, etc.)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
The folks in Congress look at the polls, and they see that people want these things in place. Do they go and interview folks to see if it's something they really want? No, they just look at the results of the polls.</font>

I have to admit to not being on top of the latest poll news, but I'd hope you can provide me with some links here that show support for some of the security measures implemented following Sep. 11.

The problem with polls follows directly from my first post: trying to determine actual, specific policy preferences from answers to very general questions is a frustrating exercise. As the budget deficits increased and the debt piled on in the 1980s and 1990s, public opinion polls found great support for dealing with this problem.

When asked which govt programs should not be cut, the same public listed social security, medicare, medicaid, etc... once you factored in service on the debt, you had pretty much covered all government spending.

Support for some general goals (an air transport system that is as safe as possible) is a poor excuse and not a credible explanation of some of the very specific (and idiotic) things going on in (US) airports.

Anyone who is familiar with my rantings on FT knows that I hate the TSA and its foolishness. Having said that, I'll give the other side of the story:

After the New York woman was forced by a power-mad screener to taste her own breast milk, at least two local TV stations ran stories about it. The stations clearly presented the incident as an abuse of power. However, one station interviewed passengers at JFK airport, where the incident occurred. One young woman, when asked her opinion, said, "It's being done for our security. What's the problem?"

Unless this person was a strange aberration (which I don't believe), you can begin to understand how the TSA gets the idea that it has the public's support for its overzealousness.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
One young woman, when asked her opinion, said, "It's being done for our security. What's the problem?"</font>

And that, right there, is why you can forget about all your complaining doing diddly squat. You don't think the politicians see that, as well as the rest of the interviews where folks say, hey, I'll deal with the inconvenience, since it's for my safety and security?

You think any politician wants to give his opponent ammo to use against him? Can you imagine the attack ads that could be run against someone who came out against these things?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
You think any politician wants to give his opponent ammo to use against him? Can you imagine the attack ads that could be run against someone who came out against these things?</font>

"Don't vote for mdtony -- he won't let TSA agents require mothers who want to fly to drink their own breast milk!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Anyone ever see the so called "jay walking" segments on Hay Leno? Or the "Talking to Americans" piece on "This hour has 22 minutes?" [Latter for my Canadian friends.]

In the latter show, they find actual Americans making comments about Canada such as "Congratulations on getting FM radio" or "congratulations on running water in all 5 states." As a representative sample of the US population these short quotes mean nothing. A last bit from these:

Reporter: "If that happens he (PM Chretien) could be forced to bomb East Timor and West Edmonton, do you agree with that?"
Americans 1, 2, and 3. "Yes." What should we conclude from this?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
"Don't vote for mdtony -- he won't let TSA agents require mothers who want to fly to drink their own breast milk!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Anyone ever see the so called "jay walking" segments on Hay Leno? Or the "Talking to Americans" piece on "This hour has 22 minutes?" [Latter for my Canadian friends.]

In the latter show, they find actual Americans making comments about Canada such as "Congratulations on getting FM radio" or "congratulations on running water in all 5 states." As a representative sample of the US population these short quotes mean nothing. A last bit from these:

Reporter: "If that happens he (PM Chretien) could be forced to bomb East Timor and West Edmonton, do you agree with that?"
Americans 1, 2, and 3. "Yes." What should we conclude from this? </font>

That with enough editing, you can make any idea or person look dumb if that is your goal.

The idea of a superior "intellectual" class, leading the masses about because of their superior ability to reason, has been around forever. The masses seem to enjoy watching these eggheads pontificate, then slapping them down as needed.

Many college students have been subjected to the exercise in which a member of a class is hown a large jar of jelly beans, and asked to estimate how many beans it contains. The answer is written down, then another student is asked and their answer written down. No matter how many times you run this exercise, and no matter what students you pick, the average of the answers is inevitably more accurate than the answers of the individuals. Collective intelligence almost always exceeds that of even the smartest individual.

You may wish to contemplate that if youa re one of the people calling the mass public names of derision.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
"Don't vote for mdtony -- he won't let TSA agents require mothers who want to fly to drink their own breast milk!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif</font>

Come on now. You know how it will go. They'll have cheesy music, with pictures of the WTC and Pentagon burning.

And then they'll say that "Congressman so and so thinks that we don't need more security to prevent this."

And then they'll say "vote for so and so. He thinks that we can't afford to lose another 3,000 Americans. He'll make sure you get the security you need."

Is it a distortion of a guy's comments that we don't need all the craziness? Oh, sure it is!

That doesn't mean that people won't think that the guy it's used against isn't concerned with their safety.

[This message has been edited by mdtony (edited 08-14-2002).]

Oh, Brian, please -- just when I was developing a grudging respect for SOME of your ideas!

Collective intelligence may be superior for estimating numbers of jelly beans, but it isn't better for everything. Let's take a familiar example: Development of the atomic bomb during WWII. A handful of very, very smart scientists and engineers had to figure out how to do that -- and they did. Perhaps you would have preferred that we take a national poll and "average" all the ideas submitted?

I suggest that developing an effective airport-security regime is more like my example than yours. Do you agree?

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
That with enough editing, you can make any idea or person look dumb if that is your goal. [...] Collective intelligence almost always exceeds that of even the smartest individual. [...] You may wish to contemplate that if youa re one of the people calling the mass public names of derision. </font>

Well, after reading my post I will start calling myself names of derision since there is no such person named Hay Leno.

As for the rest of your argument, you missed my point entirely. (Surprise!) Interview enough people and you will find one that agrees with any random point of view you put to them. When I see Mr. Smith on TV or hear him on Rush Limbaugh, I don't think this represents anything than that TV or radio show's ability to find one person able to make whatever random idiotic statement.

The jelly bean test -- if your definition of intelligence is accurately guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, you may wish to refrain from operating anything more complex than a can opener. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Come on now. You know how it will go. They'll have cheesy music, with pictures of the WTC and Pentagon burning.</font>

Did you skip over parts of the thread mdtony? Although they make great stories, all the (negative) political advertising on TV/radio/etc... has an impact on the smallest number of House/Senate races, as reelection rates reach 98% some years, and have stayed at over 90%.

Furthermore, the link between support for security and the TSA requiring mothers to drink their own breast milk remains fairly weak, to put it mildly.

[Still waiting on those poll results btw.]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
Well, after reading my post I will start calling myself names of derision since there is no such person named Hay Leno.

As for the rest of your argument, you missed my point entirely. (Surprise!) Interview enough people and you will find one that agrees with any random point of view you put to them. When I see Mr. Smith on TV or hear him on Rush Limbaugh, I don't think this represents anything than that TV or radio show's ability to find one person able to make whatever random idiotic statement.

The jelly bean test -- if your definition of intelligence is accurately guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, you may wish to refrain from operating anything more complex than a can opener. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif </font>

My definition of intelligence is irrelevant, although, typically, being completely literal in evaluating an argument, rather than considering it's intent, in order to evade the point... would probably lead to a failing grade.

But, as I say, that is just me. I think most people are basically smart and decent. I think most people who think of themselves as intellectually superior are actually somewhat lacking in real self confidence, or using it to justify extremist positions out of touch with the mainstream. They attempt to use their own supposed superiority as a justification for these positions.

I am not speaking specifically of anyone in this thread, since I am unqualified to make that judgement. Each individual gets to make it for him or herself.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
Did you skip over parts of the thread mdtony?</font>

I love it when people answer the argument they think I'd make, rather than the one I'm actually making.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
I suggest that developing an effective airport-security regime is more like my example than yours. Do you agree?

Bruce</font>

Agreed 100%.

Unfortunately, you'll notice that post-9/11, there's no longer any talk of privatizing airport security. (Funny how that worked!)

That means that the people developing an airport security system will be agents of the government.

And that means that, regardless of intelligence, every decision they make will, either directly or indirectly, be influenced by "political policy," otherwise known as the collective wisdom of two hundred and seventy million Ma and Pa Kettles.

You want a truly effective and efficient airport security system? Give those manning and operating it both the authority and responsibility to make it work. That means, if it's in private hands, make the people involved civilly and criminally liable for slip-ups.

But good luck getting that idea any airtime in the current climate of paranoia!

Mook


------------------
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

-- Thomas Jefferson

[This message has been edited by Mook (edited 08-14-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
Did you skip over parts of the thread mdtony? Although they make great stories, all the (negative) political advertising on TV/radio/etc... has an impact on the smallest number of House/Senate races, as reelection rates reach 98% some years, and have stayed at over 90%.</font>

You don't get it, do you? The folks in Congress are so afraid of giving their opponents any ammunition to use on them -- regardless of the fact that virtually all of them get reelected -- that asking any of them to do something slightly courageous is like asking the sun to rise in the west and set in the east. It ain't gonna happen!

Especially in a year where they've just done redistricting.

As for the poll results, sorry, I don't recall EVERY single thing that I read in passing and don't recall exactly where those things are. I'm afraid I have a life or something.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
You don't get it, do you? [...] As for the poll results, sorry, I don't recall EVERY single thing that I read in passing and don't recall exactly where those things are. I'm afraid I have a life or something.</font>

A life, I've always wanted to get one of those.

As far as your argument goes it seems to come down to because "I say so and although I lack anything that could be deemed as support for it."

In any case, people like us have a responsibility to speak out against "security" abuses, if for no other reason than to show our elected representatives that another side of the issue exists. If they are led by our silence to believe that EVERYBODY likes the sort of nonsense going on today, then -- you're right -- it will never change!

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
In any case, people like us have a responsibility to speak out against "security" abuses, if for no other reason than to show our elected representatives that another side of the issue exists.</font>

Feel free to do so. It is, after all, a free country. You'll excuse me, though, if I don't feel like spending my time on what is a trivial matter in my mind. For you, this is a crusade, and that's great for you. For me, it ain't worth it.

Maybe I fly more than you do (no insult intended)? The more you fly, the more you have to endure this nonsense. I fly so much that one of the National Guardsmen at LGA recognized me last week! (His partner, incidentally, told me that I was not allowed to be critical of the screeners. I felt like telling him to follow through on his oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic," but I decided it would be a waste of time -- and I didn't have very much.)

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
As far as your argument goes it seems to come down to because "I say so and although I lack anything that could be deemed as support for it."</font>

And that is different than your approach because?

In the future, I'll be sure to come here with reams of documentation, surveys, studies, and data to prove every single point I make, and I'll footnote everything.

Will that be better, Professor?

You know, after reading two pages of pretty incessant whining, I still don't see any of our staunch defenders of the constitution contacting their federal legislators and asking if they support or do not support the actions of the TSA, so that they can make an informed voting decision.

I, in fact, did write my congressperson and senators voicing concern over the excesses of the TSA, while recognizing the need for stringent security and the viability of federal air security. I also told them that I would be watching for their voting record and comments, to assure myself that, as my representative, their views were consistent with my own.

I don't really have much expectation for my goofy senators (California), but even though my congressman is a democrat, he shows some potential.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
In the future, I'll be sure to come here with reams of documentation, surveys, studies, and data to prove every single point I make, and I'll footnote everything.
</font>

Start with one of any of the above, and then I'll be delighted! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
And that is different than your approach because?</font>

Because I can provide actual references to the various facts I have presented so far, rather than hide behind the "I have a life so I can't be expected to keep track of all the things I read" defense?

Just guessing of course.

Brian,

You and I are together on this issue. I have communicated with my congressional representatives on this issue, but I don't have high hopes of any of them seeing the light anytime soon. My oldest son is currently working as an intern in our Representative's office, so he may be able to inject some of our views there. I have worked hard to make sure that my son agrees with me on this -- but it was a struggle!

Bruce