How the TSA beat fliers into submission
 

USA Today Article

"The TSA is having a heckuva summer.

From a new "trusted" traveler system it's pushing on passengers, to a peculiar new rule that requires certain electronics to power up before they can fly, to numerous bizarre incidents at screening areas, the federal agency tasked with protecting America's transportation systems has been in the news for all the wrong reasons.

But that's not the headline. No, the story is us — you and me — and our reaction to the agency's antics and missteps.

More than 12 years after the TSA's creation, it seems our anger and outrage have run dry. Travelers have come to accept anything the agency throws at us, no matter how nonsensical and despite its civil-rights implications.

The story is our TSA apathy."

Mr. Elliott is right. It's a disgrace how many have rolled over for TSA. Your representative is up for reelection this midterm. If he/she supports TSA, definitely vote for someone else. This disgusting, un-American agency should be kicked out of all USA airports and its employees should be charged with crimes ranging from sexual assault to theft to impersonating a medical doctor/law enforcement officer. Its scumbag "leaders", past and present, should be imprisoned for life.

Agreed. So many people don't care about what rights they are giving up, they just want to get through the checkpoint quickly. Then you try to point out that going through the body scanners takes much longer than WTMD, but it falls on deaf ears.

Then you have the trusted traveler program, where more and more inexperienced flyers are getting randomly chosen to enter the lanes, thus clogging down the lanes eventually. My home airport now apparently at many times has the pre-check lane feed a body scanner. It seems to be a giant bait and switch scheme getting people to sign up and promising this and that, then changing it after all. I sure picked the right time to complete my GE enrollment.

People should be up in arms over the fee increase, but I haven't seen it. They should be up in arms over the sexual harassment, the thousands standing around, the general incompetence of the agency. But it seems like people just view it as status-quo nowadays, maybe another example of government waste. I just shake my head when I see one after another after another enter the body scanners with their hands up in the air. It just doesn't seem to matter to many people. Unfortunately I still think it will get worse before it ever gets better...

From Day One, the TSA sought to frame the discourse around how fast you could get through the checkpoint and deflect or at least minimize the outrage over the latest draconian security theater tactic or blatant waste of money. They were successful and the debates continue today as they framed it back in 2002.

On top of that, you have the PreCheck extortion. They copied the Communist system of privileges. The Party (TSA) sought to co-opt a very influential class of people (frequent flyers) by promoting them as "special" and granting privileges to which the rest of us can only aspire to earn. The Party (TSA) created an upper class that became loyal to the Party (TSA) because they were told they were special and were granted a privilege that the working class couldn't get. The Privileged Class was removed from the debate because the special people know that the Prty (TSA) can take away the privilege at any time for any reason.

The joke is on us. As long as we have an almost orgasmic desire to make our flights, we will put up with anything the TSA comes up with.

No Federal candidate will come out against TSA. A large number of current Reps and Senators are against TSA, but the political reality is that they're trapped. If they call for rolling back TSA, they'll be accused by the other side as being weak on terrorism. If an attack were to happen after TSA was rolled back, then they would be thrown out of office for rolling back TSA. Regardless if TSA clerks would have prevented the attack.

Always remember that on 9/11, the hijackers boarded the planes all legal. They didn't have machine guns, they didn't have explosives, they didn't have freaking dolphins with freaking lasers on their freaking heads. They boarded with box cutters and blades that were allowable on all domestic commercial flights that day. Whether it was TSA or the minimum wage guys who used to do security, neither would have prevented 9/11 with the rules in place that morning.

Thus, we have the ever expanding "gee, maybe it's the shoes/belts/batteries/bottles of water/whatever" whack-a-mole approach to security these days. We're closing in on 8 years (August 2006) in the War on Water. Eight freaking years since we were able to take a bottle of water, a cup of coffee or a full-size tube of tooth paste through airport security. Everyone except the paranoid and those looking to make money and/or political hay off of it has known it's stupid since about 8 years ago. Yet, even with Pre-Check and everything else, the ban remains.

I support the TSA fully, absolutely and completely with all my heart and soul. I don't ever want another 9/11. In my opinion, what happened on that day was our fault due to our lackadaisical attitude toward lives and safety. The problem has been rectified and I never want to go back.

While reps may be up for re-election, the TSA just isn't a priority for the majority of voters, myself included. Economy, foreign policy, etc. frame much more important policy positions than the TSA.

I think it is a fair presumption that none of our FTers want another 9/11, I certainly don't. However I also recognize the flagrant waste of my hard earned money and usurption of liberty that the TSA represents. The agency is very good at presenting a theatre of airport security to the masses, but for those familiar with just how real security works and the easy TSA workarounds available to a determined bad guy know that the real problem is far from being rectified.

I find Americans' willingness to trade freedom for the illusion of safety alarming as well, but this last paragraph was chilling.

Presumably you'd at least grant the agency's top brass a trial before they're "imprisoned for life" on the heinous charge of trying to make air travel safer? Or does the Constitution not apply when frequent flyers are inconvenienced?

Hopefully, this was written in a sarcastic tone. If not, if you think the "problem has been rectified", you are sadly mistaken.

I would have to agree that the TSA is more of a theater troupe than a security system at this point. It has been proven that it is easier to defeat the full body scanner than a metal detector (at least with metal anyway), and the over all incompetence level is very high. Just yesterday I was told there was an oversized liquid in my bag (there wasnt) they pulled the bag tore it apart found nothing, re-ran it and somehow it was no longer there...

The logical first step in all of this is the immediate removal of the full body scanners. If random selection can send a completely un-prechecked passenger (presumably the high security risk) to the precheck lane, we have to ask our selves what the real point here? A fence is only as strong as its lowest point so if we believe that precheck is a loosened security let not think that evil doers are going to climb the high fence. Getting precheck is supremely easy, if a terrorist wanted to abuse it all they would have to do is fly a handfull of flights on any domestic airline to get enrolled (bypassing the supposed background check).

All security should function as precheck does today, then if we really have concerns randomly select passengers for additional screening. (I realize many will be opposed but truthfully the patdowns are the most secure thing they do even if we dont like it).

The article like many fails to mention airlines love the TSA. The airlines are hoping the TSA will be now be the carry on overhead baggage size police. The TSA already created a huge bump in airline revenue on people using another persons airline tickets. Both issues have zero to do with security. The ticket name issue is silly. A terrorist can have any name and become anyone. The entire name ID checking is a joke unless a national id or serial number is created and no one wants to admit or discuss that fact that biometrics would have to be added.

It's funny how even a small shift in tone can make a difference. I was recently screened at Heathrow and I alarmed the metal detector. (I can always wear my belt in the US without it going off, but I forget that doesn't always work overseas).

The security screener politely says:
He proceeded to very politely describe where he would be doing, etc.

Can you ever imagine a TSA agent initiating a pat-down that way. It's always delivered instead with phrases like "You need to..." I think a mere change in tone could go a long way to improving security...it certainly made me want to cooperate more.

Wow, good article.

Normally I can't stand Elliott but this one is somewhat cogent and on-the-mark.

Thanks for posting.

Is this some sort of joke? Parody? Performance art?

Part of the problem is the general public not having the slightest clue about the actual risks of being in an air terrorism related incident. Even with 9/11 the chances of dying in a terrorism incident are incredibly small compared to so many other everyday things, including slips/falls at home, dog bites, heart disease, suicide, etc, etc...terrorism isn't even on the chart. Instead the emotionalism from 9/11 and a few other incidents is used/abused to make decisions and direct investment of tax dollars.

Then the same lack of evidence-based decision making infects the evaluation of what are the best methods to achieve the goal of safe air transport.

I'm not saying that no improvements could have been made since 2001, or that there should be "nothing done" to ward off air terrorism. But we weren't ignoring safety with the pre-9/11 procedures, nor is the post- 9/11 TSA environment necessarily doing the right or best things. It's disturbing that the public isn't questioning the TSA environment...I bet a lot more would do so if they really understood things.

^

Count me as one of those that think TSA is a complete waste of taxpayer money and don't get me started about Pre Check and how TSA allows pretty much any and everyone in to the line after I paid $100, filled out a long form, underwent an extensive background check, an interview AND fingerprinting BEFORE I could get in that line (what a freaking joke!).

That said, I have a total hip replacement that sets off the more sensitive metal detectors and have been frisked (groped as some of you call it, lol) many times and all of the TSA personnel that have frisked me have fully explained what they were about to do, asked me if I wanted a private screening, and been quite professional about it. Just my opinion though:D

How the TSA beat fliers into submission
 

We also can't lose sight of the fact that they invited themselves into our trains, subways, buses, and interstate highway rest areas.

And we did nothing.

I agree that it would improve the experience an average traveler has at security, but it would not improve the efficacy of security. It wouldn't decrease its efficacy either, but I thought that the point of the article was "the TSA is ineffective but has trained us to ignore that" and not "the TSA is unpleasant and unprofessional." Maybe both are true (I think that the second one certainly is, at least), but I don't think anyone's alleging that Congresspeople ought to come out against the TSA because they're surly and don't explain what they're doing.

As a brown guy, I am amazed how Many times I am "randomly" selected by TSA for hand-swab and other stuff they do. :P

Random thoughts
 

I generally agree with the posters in this OP-ED.

My position goes even further:

- if I have been TSA Pre-checked, then I should be able to carry ANYTHING with me: AK-47, Chain Saw, Water, 10 laptops, a lighter, or whatever I want.

If my position sounds too extreme, just think of it: in a normal day of my life, I generally have the right to carry all of those things, legally, in most places. But I choose not too. I don't walk around in the streets of the city with a chain saw, nor do I carry an AK-47, I don't smoke, so I don't have a lighter.

If you can not trust the trusted travelers, then the trust is not worth a penny.

Mark my words: the next terrorist attack is not going to come from within an aircraft. It will come from outside of the aircraft.

What do you expect? The last time 4 planes were brought down, those involved were all brownish guys.

TWB :td:

So 21 hijackers out of 2 billion or so brownish guys total.. so there is.a 0.00000000001% chance that any random brown guy is an hijacker!

Including the last one in Ukraine shot down by white guys?

Including the last one in Ukraine shot down by white guys?

Including the last one in Ukraine shot down by white guys?

Including the last one in Ukraine shot down by white guys?

The TSA couldn't prevent the hijacking of a wagon, let alone an airplane.

The content of your post espouses one of the most ignorant views of the TSA and its procedures that I have seen in a very long time.

I guess when an aircraft is taken down by an anally implanted explosive, you will line right up before each flight for a manual anal cavity search?

Our forefathers are rolling in their graves as they read your post.

Yeah, security in China has also always been very polite.

They also apparently never search the bags of foreigners--if x-ray sees something strange you are asked to show them the item. I have seen them search the bag of my SIL (Chinese citizen), though. I like the approach, there's much less chance of sticky fingers and it's probably faster besides as normally I have known what the item was and where it was packed. The only time I didn't recognize it they wouldn't have found it any faster than I did--I had used the space between the rails of the handle to pack some chopsticks. I didn't realize my wife had bought one metal pair and didn't recognize them on the x-ray.

It will come at the TSA checkpoint.

"I don't ever want another 9/11. In my opinion, what happened on that day was our fault due to our lackadaisical attitude toward lives and safety. The problem has been rectified and I never want to go back."
How true, how true. Hey, I have an idea--let's give up *all* our Constitutional rights,
just to be completely safe.

Pesky Monkey: got a stutter (post 25, 26, 27, 28) ;) ?

^ As I have said on several posts: it is easier to shoot down a plane than to get on one. While I do not like some of the TSA theater, I do hope the TSA is looking in better security around airports (easier to use an RPG on takeoff and landing than at altitude - it takes more missile to hit a plane at cruising altitude).

Hope this is sarcasm - if yes, bravo. If not, le sigh.

the answer why is simple
 

Well, what does one say to the TSA question: "Do you want to fly today?"

I hardly ever can answer "No" to this question.

"I frankly could not care less. Now go find your supervisor for me. We're going to have a discussion about your job performance."

And, yes, I have really said just that. More than once. And, yes, I flew that day.

I posted a question to this effect on the TSA blog a couple of times. It has been ignored. However, I think PreCheck is useless with respect to cutting the risk of a terror event, so the TSA bloggers do not really need to answer that question. I would much rather they answer the question of how exactly TSA thinks PreCheck makes flights safer. As long as TSA continues to fail to provide independently reviewable cost-benefit and risk assessments for PreCheck, I will continue to hypothesize that PreCheck is about shutting up vocal frequent flyers, not making air travel safer.

I'm not sure justifying PreCheck as being "safer" than regular screenings is the right answer. I think the TSA first needs to justify that the regular screenings (body scanners, pat downs) and their other security "enhancements" make flights safer than a conventional PreCheck screening. Many nations still use the typical screenings conducted during PreCheck with no issue.

I'd like to see a little more justification for the invasion of privacy, personally. I'm not saying we need to go back to metal detectors at each gate (though I fail to see how that level of screening would be any less secure than one check at the entrance to the terminal and then nothing thereafter), but I don't think we can attribute the lack of airplane terrorism since 2002 to body scanners and shampoo bans.

One huge change: FLIGHT DECK DOORS THAT LOCK! Another is the general awareness of the public. Nobody is acting suspicious and getting one over on a plane of 150+ people anymore. In 2001 the act was unfathomable and shocking, in 2014 there'd be a melee on the plane before anybody hijacked anything.

Smarter security, not "more" security . . .

I understand your point of view. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents every year. I don't ever want that to happen again. In my opinion, it's due to our lackadaisical attitude toward lives and safety. To rectify the problem, I'd recommend a 20 MPH speed limit and drunk driving checkpoints every mile. Police should also be able to search cars at will and randomly, just in case.

I've been talking to my boss about working from home full-time. There are a lot of trees in my neighborhood, and if one fell on me, it could do some serious damage. Also, I have to cross two busy intersections. The grocery store delivers just about everything I need, so I'd never really need to leave the house.

Mike