Widespread TSA Failures in Latest DHS Tests
Jun 5, 2015, 1:08 pm
#76
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: BUR
Posts: 769
I WISH I HAD THE ANSWER. I'd be like a public policy master of some kind. I hear the Isarelies do a pretty good job but that's adifferent bowl of wax over there since the existential challenges are literally right in front of your face. With us, it's only the painful memory that keeps our vigilance.
My short answer is that they really need to broaden the safe traveler or known traveller program. Get people like us (frequent travelers) out of these ridiculous lines and subject the rest of the herd to scrutiny. Yes it costs money for us but unfortunately we got to pay for our freedom somehow. Devon suggestion is to outlaw hand guns altogether. No exceptions even in checked luggage. Makes it much easier to have a universal policy. Third is to restrict visa allowances people from unfriendly countries. And stop pretending that we are about refugees defecting. The times of Elise Island and accepting the poor and the hungry are long over. We gotta be selective and smart about who we let in. Lastly I'd be in favor of folding the DHA into DOD, which has real soldiers and real powers. Just some suggestions.
My short answer is that they really need to broaden the safe traveler or known traveller program. Get people like us (frequent travelers) out of these ridiculous lines and subject the rest of the herd to scrutiny. Yes it costs money for us but unfortunately we got to pay for our freedom somehow. Devon suggestion is to outlaw hand guns altogether. No exceptions even in checked luggage. Makes it much easier to have a universal policy. Third is to restrict visa allowances people from unfriendly countries. And stop pretending that we are about refugees defecting. The times of Elise Island and accepting the poor and the hungry are long over. We gotta be selective and smart about who we let in. Lastly I'd be in favor of folding the DHA into DOD, which has real soldiers and real powers. Just some suggestions.
Jun 5, 2015, 3:21 pm
#77
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
I WISH I HAD THE ANSWER. I'd be like a public policy master of some kind. I hear the Isarelies do a pretty good job but that's adifferent bowl of wax over there since the existential challenges are literally right in front of your face. With us, it's only the painful memory that keeps our vigilance.
My short answer is that they really need to broaden the safe traveler or known traveller program. Get people like us (frequent travelers) out of these ridiculous lines and subject the rest of the herd to scrutiny. Yes it costs money for us but unfortunately we got to pay for our freedom somehow. Devon suggestion is to outlaw hand guns altogether. No exceptions even in checked luggage. Makes it much easier to have a universal policy. Third is to restrict visa allowances people from unfriendly countries. And stop pretending that we are about refugees defecting. The times of Elise Island and accepting the poor and the hungry are long over. We gotta be selective and smart about who we let in. Lastly I'd be in favor of folding the DHA into DOD, which has real soldiers and real powers. Just some suggestions.
My short answer is that they really need to broaden the safe traveler or known traveller program. Get people like us (frequent travelers) out of these ridiculous lines and subject the rest of the herd to scrutiny. Yes it costs money for us but unfortunately we got to pay for our freedom somehow. Devon suggestion is to outlaw hand guns altogether. No exceptions even in checked luggage. Makes it much easier to have a universal policy. Third is to restrict visa allowances people from unfriendly countries. And stop pretending that we are about refugees defecting. The times of Elise Island and accepting the poor and the hungry are long over. We gotta be selective and smart about who we let in. Lastly I'd be in favor of folding the DHA into DOD, which has real soldiers and real powers. Just some suggestions.
The Red Team tests are a viable means to check screening operations and indicate weaknesses in TSA methods and policies.
The vast majority of travelers are present no threat and should be treated in that manner. Use reasonable base screening methods and elevate as needed based on individual circumstance dictates.
There is no need to restrict LGA's. Even the former head of TSA, Kip Hawlley, said so.
There is no reason to remove shoes, belts, jackets, and such. The threat vector from that direction is 2 in many, many billions of travelers.
It is TSA and its policies that have screwed up the security screenings.
As far as involving DOD in domestic airport security I would suggest studying up on the law that prevents the deployment of the military inside of the United States in most cases.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385
Jun 5, 2015, 3:47 pm
#78
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Don't get me wrong; I don't know whether TSA could be reformed. But, logically, there's no reason that eliminating TSA shouldn't be an option under consideration.
Jun 5, 2015, 6:52 pm
#79
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
You don't need to be a public policy master to understand common sense and plain accountability.
Whether or not Israel does "a pretty good job" with its aviation security depends entirely on your point of view and personal experience. I haven't experienced it directly, but suffice it to say, I've heard opinions on both sides.
No, what's been keeping our vigilance for the last ten years or so has been continual fear-mongering by those in the government and those in private industry who have a vested interest (politically, financially, or both) in keeping our levels of paranoia, suspicion, xenophonia, and panic at a high enough level to achieve carte blanche when it comes to spending money and restricting liberties in the pursuit of some unattainable state of safety and security.
Only frequent travelers have rights? No way, pal. I may be an infrequent traveler, but I'm a full-time human-freakin'-being, and I have the same rights and freedoms as you have. I ain't gonna pay some extortion money to keep the rights and freedoms I have. When it comes to purchased services or special privileges from a private company, I say, Pay more, Get more. But when it comes to Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms, I say, Millions for Defense* but not one penny for Tribute!
*In this context, I mean Defense against government abridgement of personal liberties, not against the way overblown danger of terrorism.
Although freedom has been purchased for us in blood, the true price of freedom is RISK, risk that someone will abuse their freedom to do others harm. That price cannot, MUST not, be borne by a few, but must be borne by all who wish to maintain their freedoms.
The money we pay for TSA doesn't safeguard our freedoms one iota. In point of fact, we're paying for our own government to destroy our freedoms and strip away our rights, all in the name of safety and security that are impossible to achieve.
Third is to restrict visa allowances people from unfriendly countries. And stop pretending that we are about refugees defecting. The times of Elise Island and accepting the poor and the hungry are long over. We gotta be selective and smart about who we let in. Lastly I'd be in favor of folding the DHA into DOD, which has real soldiers and real powers. Just some suggestions.
Okay, I'll just take it point by point:
1) Define "unfriendly countries." And define the parameters you use to decide whose visas are denied based on their country of origin or citizenship. I believe we already have a list of countries put out by the State Department of those who are embargoed or are considered state sponsors of terrorism. But keep that xenophobia and bigotry up! I'm sure it keeps you warm at night.
2) We are still about refugees and always will be. The time of "Elise" island (by the way, it's Ellis Island, Elise was Alex P. Keaton's Mom on Family Ties) may be over, but the time of America welcoming those from other nations who wish to become Americans through hard work will never end. And we ARE selective and smart about who we let in. In fact, we may be a little TOO selective; skilled people from other countries who want to emigrate to the US often have a really difficult time getting in.
3) I have no idea what the DHA is, but if you're referring to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security), then I think you're out of your mind to want to fold it into the DOD (Department of Defense). The DOD encompasses the armed forces, which are used to defend the nation against armed invasion, and fights wars against other nations.
The DHS, on the other hand, is a .......ized agency cobbled together from domestic law enforcement and investigatory agencies. Ther is no way in hell I want the FBI - domestic national police force - to be part of the military. I even think it's a tremendous mistake to have folded the US Coast Guard - a branch of military service tasked with defending US national waters - into the DHS.
The armed forces fight the country's enemies. When you try to task them with policing the citizens of their country, they inevitably come to regard the citizens AS the enemy, and that's when you get a military dictatorship or oligarchy or other form of tyrannical rule. The military should have no authority whatsoever over the people.
Nor should police forces be militarized into domestic occupation forces. Police forces in this country already tend to feel that they're soldiers in a war, and they regard the citizenry as the enemy, which is why we have such a disconnect between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving. The more militarized they get, the more they'll feel like soldiers, and the more they feel like soldiers, the more they'll act like soldiers.
Personally, I'd be in favor of abolishing DHS entirely and folding its constituent agencies back into the other federal departments from whence they originally came. The very name, Homeland Security, gave me chills from the first time I heard it, and not in a good way.
Well, this has been a rant, but let me sum up by saying simply that I completely disagree with everything you said.
Jun 5, 2015, 10:13 pm
#80
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: BUR
Posts: 769
Not surprisingly I disagree.
As far as involving DOD in domestic airport security I would suggest studying up on the law that prevents the deployment of the military inside of the United States in most cases.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385
As far as involving DOD in domestic airport security I would suggest studying up on the law that prevents the deployment of the military inside of the United States in most cases.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385
Jun 5, 2015, 10:24 pm
#81
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: BUR
Posts: 769
There is an answer... in about 27 parts. Outside audits with consequences for specific individuals who fail. Get rid of the paramilitary trappings (uniforms, badges, "officer" titles, honor guards, etc) and treat TSOs like what they are, clerks. Establish clear, non-secret, totally transparent procedures and rules, take away discretion from the screeners, and introduce a radically shrunken prohibited items list. Cease trumpeting ANY discoveries other than weapons as "big catches" - it's not a big catch if you find drugs when you're supposed to be looking for weapons. Put big, clear nametags on every TSA employee and require them to give their full name to anyone who asks. Post rules about photography being permissible and other passenger rights big and clear in every airport, and especially in every TSA break room. If someone breaks the rules, FIRE THEIR AZZ! Etc, etc, etc.
You don't need to be a public policy master to understand common sense and plain accountability.
Israel's bowl of wax includes no formal Constitution, and there are enough loopholes on the Basic Laws of Human Dignity and Liberty to drive a truck through.
Whether or not Israel does "a pretty good job" with its aviation security depends entirely on your point of view and personal experience. I haven't experienced it directly, but suffice it to say, I've heard opinions on both sides.
No, what's been keeping our vigilance for the last ten years or so has been continual fear-mongering by those in the government and those in private industry who have a vested interest (politically, financially, or both) in keeping our levels of paranoia, suspicion, xenophonia, and panic at a high enough level to achieve carte blanche when it comes to spending money and restricting liberties in the pursuit of some unattainable state of safety and security.
My first thought when I read something like this consists of two words, one of which is not printable on this site, and the other of which is "you!"
Only frequent travelers have rights? No way, pal. I may be an infrequent traveler, but I'm a full-time human-freakin'-being, and I have the same rights and freedoms as you have. I ain't gonna pay some extortion money to keep the rights and freedoms I have. When it comes to purchased services or special privileges from a private company, I say, Pay more, Get more. But when it comes to Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms, I say, Millions for Defense* but not one penny for Tribute!
*In this context, I mean Defense against government abridgement of personal liberties, not against the way overblown danger of terrorism.
Freedom isn't free, but you don't pay for it with money. If you've been buying boxes of New Freedom or Stayfree in the store, I've got news for you - that ain't freedom you're buying.
Although freedom has been purchased for us in blood, the true price of freedom is RISK, risk that someone will abuse their freedom to do others harm. That price cannot, MUST not, be borne by a few, but must be borne by all who wish to maintain their freedoms.
The money we pay for TSA doesn't safeguard our freedoms one iota. In point of fact, we're paying for our own government to destroy our freedoms and strip away our rights, all in the name of safety and security that are impossible to achieve.
There already is a universal policy - firearms are prohibited in the cabin. What is banning firearms from checked bags going to accomplish? It's a non-threat - passengers can't access the luggage holds! I don't know where you came up with this particular non-sequitur, but let me respond by saying that the price of tribbles on Benecia is on the rise, and the price of grapes in Carthage is on the decline.
Yipe. This paragraph is so full of...
Okay, I'll just take it point by point:
1) Define "unfriendly countries." And define the parameters you use to decide whose visas are denied based on their country of origin or citizenship. I believe we already have a list of countries put out by the State Department of those who are embargoed or are considered state sponsors of terrorism. But keep that xenophobia and bigotry up! I'm sure it keeps you warm at night.
2) We are still about refugees and always will be. The time of "Elise" island (by the way, it's Ellis Island, Elise was Alex P. Keaton's Mom on Family Ties) may be over, but the time of America welcoming those from other nations who wish to become Americans through hard work will never end. And we ARE selective and smart about who we let in. In fact, we may be a little TOO selective; skilled people from other countries who want to emigrate to the US often have a really difficult time getting in.
3) I have no idea what the DHA is, but if you're referring to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security), then I think you're out of your mind to want to fold it into the DOD (Department of Defense). The DOD encompasses the armed forces, which are used to defend the nation against armed invasion, and fights wars against other nations.
The DHS, on the other hand, is a .......ized agency cobbled together from domestic law enforcement and investigatory agencies. Ther is no way in hell I want the FBI - domestic national police force - to be part of the military. I even think it's a tremendous mistake to have folded the US Coast Guard - a branch of military service tasked with defending US national waters - into the DHS.
The armed forces fight the country's enemies. When you try to task them with policing the citizens of their country, they inevitably come to regard the citizens AS the enemy, and that's when you get a military dictatorship or oligarchy or other form of tyrannical rule. The military should have no authority whatsoever over the people.
Nor should police forces be militarized into domestic occupation forces. Police forces in this country already tend to feel that they're soldiers in a war, and they regard the citizenry as the enemy, which is why we have such a disconnect between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving. The more militarized they get, the more they'll feel like soldiers, and the more they feel like soldiers, the more they'll act like soldiers.
Personally, I'd be in favor of abolishing DHS entirely and folding its constituent agencies back into the other federal departments from whence they originally came. The very name, Homeland Security, gave me chills from the first time I heard it, and not in a good way.
Well, this has been a rant, but let me sum up by saying simply that I completely disagree with everything you said.
You don't need to be a public policy master to understand common sense and plain accountability.
Israel's bowl of wax includes no formal Constitution, and there are enough loopholes on the Basic Laws of Human Dignity and Liberty to drive a truck through.
Whether or not Israel does "a pretty good job" with its aviation security depends entirely on your point of view and personal experience. I haven't experienced it directly, but suffice it to say, I've heard opinions on both sides.
No, what's been keeping our vigilance for the last ten years or so has been continual fear-mongering by those in the government and those in private industry who have a vested interest (politically, financially, or both) in keeping our levels of paranoia, suspicion, xenophonia, and panic at a high enough level to achieve carte blanche when it comes to spending money and restricting liberties in the pursuit of some unattainable state of safety and security.
My first thought when I read something like this consists of two words, one of which is not printable on this site, and the other of which is "you!"
Only frequent travelers have rights? No way, pal. I may be an infrequent traveler, but I'm a full-time human-freakin'-being, and I have the same rights and freedoms as you have. I ain't gonna pay some extortion money to keep the rights and freedoms I have. When it comes to purchased services or special privileges from a private company, I say, Pay more, Get more. But when it comes to Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms, I say, Millions for Defense* but not one penny for Tribute!
*In this context, I mean Defense against government abridgement of personal liberties, not against the way overblown danger of terrorism.
Freedom isn't free, but you don't pay for it with money. If you've been buying boxes of New Freedom or Stayfree in the store, I've got news for you - that ain't freedom you're buying.
Although freedom has been purchased for us in blood, the true price of freedom is RISK, risk that someone will abuse their freedom to do others harm. That price cannot, MUST not, be borne by a few, but must be borne by all who wish to maintain their freedoms.
The money we pay for TSA doesn't safeguard our freedoms one iota. In point of fact, we're paying for our own government to destroy our freedoms and strip away our rights, all in the name of safety and security that are impossible to achieve.
There already is a universal policy - firearms are prohibited in the cabin. What is banning firearms from checked bags going to accomplish? It's a non-threat - passengers can't access the luggage holds! I don't know where you came up with this particular non-sequitur, but let me respond by saying that the price of tribbles on Benecia is on the rise, and the price of grapes in Carthage is on the decline.
Yipe. This paragraph is so full of...
Okay, I'll just take it point by point:
1) Define "unfriendly countries." And define the parameters you use to decide whose visas are denied based on their country of origin or citizenship. I believe we already have a list of countries put out by the State Department of those who are embargoed or are considered state sponsors of terrorism. But keep that xenophobia and bigotry up! I'm sure it keeps you warm at night.
2) We are still about refugees and always will be. The time of "Elise" island (by the way, it's Ellis Island, Elise was Alex P. Keaton's Mom on Family Ties) may be over, but the time of America welcoming those from other nations who wish to become Americans through hard work will never end. And we ARE selective and smart about who we let in. In fact, we may be a little TOO selective; skilled people from other countries who want to emigrate to the US often have a really difficult time getting in.
3) I have no idea what the DHA is, but if you're referring to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security), then I think you're out of your mind to want to fold it into the DOD (Department of Defense). The DOD encompasses the armed forces, which are used to defend the nation against armed invasion, and fights wars against other nations.
The DHS, on the other hand, is a .......ized agency cobbled together from domestic law enforcement and investigatory agencies. Ther is no way in hell I want the FBI - domestic national police force - to be part of the military. I even think it's a tremendous mistake to have folded the US Coast Guard - a branch of military service tasked with defending US national waters - into the DHS.
The armed forces fight the country's enemies. When you try to task them with policing the citizens of their country, they inevitably come to regard the citizens AS the enemy, and that's when you get a military dictatorship or oligarchy or other form of tyrannical rule. The military should have no authority whatsoever over the people.
Nor should police forces be militarized into domestic occupation forces. Police forces in this country already tend to feel that they're soldiers in a war, and they regard the citizenry as the enemy, which is why we have such a disconnect between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving. The more militarized they get, the more they'll feel like soldiers, and the more they feel like soldiers, the more they'll act like soldiers.
Personally, I'd be in favor of abolishing DHS entirely and folding its constituent agencies back into the other federal departments from whence they originally came. The very name, Homeland Security, gave me chills from the first time I heard it, and not in a good way.
Well, this has been a rant, but let me sum up by saying simply that I completely disagree with everything you said.
I congratulate you for having this wonderful idealism and freedom to fly and and whatnot. Good for you. Whether your ideas and spirits prevail in this political body heavily influenced by the corporations and vested interests..... I'm not so sure. On this forum and other internet forums, I post on subject at hand and try not to go into my political underpinnings or rant about what an ideal policy may be by the government. But I think you know where I stand by my signature line. I'm just a little more of realist looking for a solution we can implement. But thank you for sharing.... including your attempted expletives.
Jun 9, 2015, 2:01 am
#82
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,785
Some Context:
The 95% from the sampling size of 70? This isn't a fair summary judgement of the TSA performance. It is statistically insignificant and that is why a politician would say things like "out of context."
For us to make a "whole" judgement about the TSA, we need the sampling to be larger for it to have statistical power. ...
This is why the TSA conducts these tests for internal purposes as something like this cannot be the representation of their entire performance.
The 95% from the sampling size of 70? This isn't a fair summary judgement of the TSA performance. It is statistically insignificant and that is why a politician would say things like "out of context."
For us to make a "whole" judgement about the TSA, we need the sampling to be larger for it to have statistical power. ...
This is why the TSA conducts these tests for internal purposes as something like this cannot be the representation of their entire performance.
However, TSA has not come forward with anything to refute the 95% score.
This suggests, to me, one of three possibilities:
a) They have far more "Red Team" results than the 70 reported here, and the larger sample size also shows 95% (or worse
) failure. (Because if they had, say, a few thousand "Red Team" results that showed a 10% or 30% or even 80% failure rate, they'd have jumped in to correct the story.) Or:b) TSA management is so statistically clueless that they believe 70 tests (in whatever time period) is sufficient to evaluate the performance of the entire agency, or,
c) TSA management is so incredibly statistically clueless that they can't figure out that the folder labeled "8000 Red Team Tests - 40% failure" would paint a better picture than the "95% failure in 70 tests" headlines.
None of those options make the TSA look any more competent than the "95% failure rate" meme.
Also the whole reason why we have TSA is not to catch the bad guys at the airport. The inteligence guys actually catches more them by doing investigation even before they go to the airport. It is a meant to be a deterent like the home alarm system (always having false alarms and not working) where the thief doesn't want to bother taking a chance....... just in case they do catch something or someone.
Secondly, missing 95% of Bad Things is not much of a deterrent. If, as the TSA would like you to believe, there are a huge number of determined Bad Guys probing the system day after day, by now they would have figured out they have a 95% chance of success.
Jun 9, 2015, 6:48 am
#83
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
The only thing I'd say to you is that you corrected many of my spelling error. I was just getting on a flight and was typing really fast on my phone. Thank you.
I congratulate you for having this wonderful idealism and freedom to fly and and whatnot. Good for you. Whether your ideas and spirits prevail in this political body heavily influenced by the corporations and vested interests..... I'm not so sure. On this forum and other internet forums, I post on subject at hand and try not to go into my political underpinnings or rant about what an ideal policy may be by the government. But I think you know where I stand by my signature line. I'm just a little more of realist looking for a solution we can implement. But thank you for sharing.... including your attempted expletives.
I congratulate you for having this wonderful idealism and freedom to fly and and whatnot. Good for you. Whether your ideas and spirits prevail in this political body heavily influenced by the corporations and vested interests..... I'm not so sure. On this forum and other internet forums, I post on subject at hand and try not to go into my political underpinnings or rant about what an ideal policy may be by the government. But I think you know where I stand by my signature line. I'm just a little more of realist looking for a solution we can implement. But thank you for sharing.... including your attempted expletives.
Mike
Jun 9, 2015, 6:50 am
#84
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
There is an answer... in about 27 parts. Outside audits with consequences for specific individuals who fail. Get rid of the paramilitary trappings (uniforms, badges, "officer" titles, honor guards, etc) and treat TSOs like what they are, clerks. Establish clear, non-secret, totally transparent procedures and rules, take away discretion from the screeners, and introduce a radically shrunken prohibited items list. Cease trumpeting ANY discoveries other than weapons as "big catches" - it's not a big catch if you find drugs when you're supposed to be looking for weapons. Put big, clear nametags on every TSA employee and require them to give their full name to anyone who asks. Post rules about photography being permissible and other passenger rights big and clear in every airport, and especially in every TSA break room. If someone breaks the rules, FIRE THEIR AZZ! Etc, etc, etc.
You don't need to be a public policy master to understand common sense and plain accountability.
Israel's bowl of wax includes no formal Constitution, and there are enough loopholes on the Basic Laws of Human Dignity and Liberty to drive a truck through.
Whether or not Israel does "a pretty good job" with its aviation security depends entirely on your point of view and personal experience. I haven't experienced it directly, but suffice it to say, I've heard opinions on both sides.
No, what's been keeping our vigilance for the last ten years or so has been continual fear-mongering by those in the government and those in private industry who have a vested interest (politically, financially, or both) in keeping our levels of paranoia, suspicion, xenophonia, and panic at a high enough level to achieve carte blanche when it comes to spending money and restricting liberties in the pursuit of some unattainable state of safety and security.
My first thought when I read something like this consists of two words, one of which is not printable on this site, and the other of which is "you!"
Only frequent travelers have rights? No way, pal. I may be an infrequent traveler, but I'm a full-time human-freakin'-being, and I have the same rights and freedoms as you have. I ain't gonna pay some extortion money to keep the rights and freedoms I have. When it comes to purchased services or special privileges from a private company, I say, Pay more, Get more. But when it comes to Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms, I say, Millions for Defense* but not one penny for Tribute!
*In this context, I mean Defense against government abridgement of personal liberties, not against the way overblown danger of terrorism.
Freedom isn't free, but you don't pay for it with money. If you've been buying boxes of New Freedom or Stayfree in the store, I've got news for you - that ain't freedom you're buying.
Although freedom has been purchased for us in blood, the true price of freedom is RISK, risk that someone will abuse their freedom to do others harm. That price cannot, MUST not, be borne by a few, but must be borne by all who wish to maintain their freedoms.
The money we pay for TSA doesn't safeguard our freedoms one iota. In point of fact, we're paying for our own government to destroy our freedoms and strip away our rights, all in the name of safety and security that are impossible to achieve.
There already is a universal policy - firearms are prohibited in the cabin. What is banning firearms from checked bags going to accomplish? It's a non-threat - passengers can't access the luggage holds! I don't know where you came up with this particular non-sequitur, but let me respond by saying that the price of tribbles on Benecia is on the rise, and the price of grapes in Carthage is on the decline.
Yipe. This paragraph is so full of...
Okay, I'll just take it point by point:
1) Define "unfriendly countries." And define the parameters you use to decide whose visas are denied based on their country of origin or citizenship. I believe we already have a list of countries put out by the State Department of those who are embargoed or are considered state sponsors of terrorism. But keep that xenophobia and bigotry up! I'm sure it keeps you warm at night.
2) We are still about refugees and always will be. The time of "Elise" island (by the way, it's Ellis Island, Elise was Alex P. Keaton's Mom on Family Ties) may be over, but the time of America welcoming those from other nations who wish to become Americans through hard work will never end. And we ARE selective and smart about who we let in. In fact, we may be a little TOO selective; skilled people from other countries who want to emigrate to the US often have a really difficult time getting in.
3) I have no idea what the DHA is, but if you're referring to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security), then I think you're out of your mind to want to fold it into the DOD (Department of Defense). The DOD encompasses the armed forces, which are used to defend the nation against armed invasion, and fights wars against other nations.
The DHS, on the other hand, is a .......ized agency cobbled together from domestic law enforcement and investigatory agencies. Ther is no way in hell I want the FBI - domestic national police force - to be part of the military. I even think it's a tremendous mistake to have folded the US Coast Guard - a branch of military service tasked with defending US national waters - into the DHS.
The armed forces fight the country's enemies. When you try to task them with policing the citizens of their country, they inevitably come to regard the citizens AS the enemy, and that's when you get a military dictatorship or oligarchy or other form of tyrannical rule. The military should have no authority whatsoever over the people.
Nor should police forces be militarized into domestic occupation forces. Police forces in this country already tend to feel that they're soldiers in a war, and they regard the citizenry as the enemy, which is why we have such a disconnect between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving. The more militarized they get, the more they'll feel like soldiers, and the more they feel like soldiers, the more they'll act like soldiers.
Personally, I'd be in favor of abolishing DHS entirely and folding its constituent agencies back into the other federal departments from whence they originally came. The very name, Homeland Security, gave me chills from the first time I heard it, and not in a good way.
Well, this has been a rant, but let me sum up by saying simply that I completely disagree with everything you said.
You don't need to be a public policy master to understand common sense and plain accountability.
Israel's bowl of wax includes no formal Constitution, and there are enough loopholes on the Basic Laws of Human Dignity and Liberty to drive a truck through.
Whether or not Israel does "a pretty good job" with its aviation security depends entirely on your point of view and personal experience. I haven't experienced it directly, but suffice it to say, I've heard opinions on both sides.
No, what's been keeping our vigilance for the last ten years or so has been continual fear-mongering by those in the government and those in private industry who have a vested interest (politically, financially, or both) in keeping our levels of paranoia, suspicion, xenophonia, and panic at a high enough level to achieve carte blanche when it comes to spending money and restricting liberties in the pursuit of some unattainable state of safety and security.
My first thought when I read something like this consists of two words, one of which is not printable on this site, and the other of which is "you!"
Only frequent travelers have rights? No way, pal. I may be an infrequent traveler, but I'm a full-time human-freakin'-being, and I have the same rights and freedoms as you have. I ain't gonna pay some extortion money to keep the rights and freedoms I have. When it comes to purchased services or special privileges from a private company, I say, Pay more, Get more. But when it comes to Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms, I say, Millions for Defense* but not one penny for Tribute!
*In this context, I mean Defense against government abridgement of personal liberties, not against the way overblown danger of terrorism.
Freedom isn't free, but you don't pay for it with money. If you've been buying boxes of New Freedom or Stayfree in the store, I've got news for you - that ain't freedom you're buying.
Although freedom has been purchased for us in blood, the true price of freedom is RISK, risk that someone will abuse their freedom to do others harm. That price cannot, MUST not, be borne by a few, but must be borne by all who wish to maintain their freedoms.
The money we pay for TSA doesn't safeguard our freedoms one iota. In point of fact, we're paying for our own government to destroy our freedoms and strip away our rights, all in the name of safety and security that are impossible to achieve.
There already is a universal policy - firearms are prohibited in the cabin. What is banning firearms from checked bags going to accomplish? It's a non-threat - passengers can't access the luggage holds! I don't know where you came up with this particular non-sequitur, but let me respond by saying that the price of tribbles on Benecia is on the rise, and the price of grapes in Carthage is on the decline.
Yipe. This paragraph is so full of...
Okay, I'll just take it point by point:
1) Define "unfriendly countries." And define the parameters you use to decide whose visas are denied based on their country of origin or citizenship. I believe we already have a list of countries put out by the State Department of those who are embargoed or are considered state sponsors of terrorism. But keep that xenophobia and bigotry up! I'm sure it keeps you warm at night.
2) We are still about refugees and always will be. The time of "Elise" island (by the way, it's Ellis Island, Elise was Alex P. Keaton's Mom on Family Ties) may be over, but the time of America welcoming those from other nations who wish to become Americans through hard work will never end. And we ARE selective and smart about who we let in. In fact, we may be a little TOO selective; skilled people from other countries who want to emigrate to the US often have a really difficult time getting in.
3) I have no idea what the DHA is, but if you're referring to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security), then I think you're out of your mind to want to fold it into the DOD (Department of Defense). The DOD encompasses the armed forces, which are used to defend the nation against armed invasion, and fights wars against other nations.
The DHS, on the other hand, is a .......ized agency cobbled together from domestic law enforcement and investigatory agencies. Ther is no way in hell I want the FBI - domestic national police force - to be part of the military. I even think it's a tremendous mistake to have folded the US Coast Guard - a branch of military service tasked with defending US national waters - into the DHS.
The armed forces fight the country's enemies. When you try to task them with policing the citizens of their country, they inevitably come to regard the citizens AS the enemy, and that's when you get a military dictatorship or oligarchy or other form of tyrannical rule. The military should have no authority whatsoever over the people.
Nor should police forces be militarized into domestic occupation forces. Police forces in this country already tend to feel that they're soldiers in a war, and they regard the citizenry as the enemy, which is why we have such a disconnect between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving. The more militarized they get, the more they'll feel like soldiers, and the more they feel like soldiers, the more they'll act like soldiers.
Personally, I'd be in favor of abolishing DHS entirely and folding its constituent agencies back into the other federal departments from whence they originally came. The very name, Homeland Security, gave me chills from the first time I heard it, and not in a good way.
Well, this has been a rant, but let me sum up by saying simply that I completely disagree with everything you said.
~~
ETA to add link: http://tsanewsblog.com/16037/news/re...it-like-it-is/
Last edited by petaluma1; Jun 9, 2015 at 7:04 am
Jun 9, 2015, 8:47 am
#85
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kettle with Kryptonium Medallion Tags
Posts: 10,306
I agree with you that getting a 95% score from a sample size of 70, for an agency that has "nearly 50,000" employees and screens "nearly 2 million" passengers a day, is statistically, uh..., inappropriate.
However, TSA has not come forward with anything to refute the 95% score.
However, TSA has not come forward with anything to refute the 95% score.
A test could be a red team of 10 deploying to an airport and each team member passing thru the checkpoint 10 or 20 times over 2 or 3 days (to check different shifts of TSOs).
My guess is that a "test" refers to an airport, not to one person passing thru a checkpoint once.
Jun 9, 2015, 8:51 am
#86
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
We don't know what their definition of a "test" is.
A test could be a red team of 10 deploying to an airport and each team member passing thru the checkpoint 10 or 20 times over 2 or 3 days (to check different shifts of TSOs).
My guess is that a "test" refers to an airport, not to one person passing thru a checkpoint once.
A test could be a red team of 10 deploying to an airport and each team member passing thru the checkpoint 10 or 20 times over 2 or 3 days (to check different shifts of TSOs).
My guess is that a "test" refers to an airport, not to one person passing thru a checkpoint once.
Was that one test or 5 tests?
Jun 9, 2015, 9:31 am
#87
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 642
This is the best comment I have ever read on TS/S. Thank you, WillCAD!
~~
ETA to add link: http://tsanewsblog.com/16037/news/re...it-like-it-is/
~~
ETA to add link: http://tsanewsblog.com/16037/news/re...it-like-it-is/
Jun 9, 2015, 10:42 am
#88
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
We don't know what their definition of a "test" is.
A test could be a red team of 10 deploying to an airport and each team member passing thru the checkpoint 10 or 20 times over 2 or 3 days (to check different shifts of TSOs).
My guess is that a "test" refers to an airport, not to one person passing thru a checkpoint once.
A test could be a red team of 10 deploying to an airport and each team member passing thru the checkpoint 10 or 20 times over 2 or 3 days (to check different shifts of TSOs).
My guess is that a "test" refers to an airport, not to one person passing thru a checkpoint once.
I tend to believe that each of the 70 tests involved multiple individuals transiting checkpoints multiple times at a particular airport over multiple days. If that is so, then the tests would really represent 70 airports.
While 70 airports is still not all of the hundreds in the US, it's certainly more than enough to include all of the major big-city hubs like BOS, LGA, DCA, ORD, DEN, LAX, SEA, etc, and quite a few of the medium and smaller size airports, as well. It's enough to provide a truly representative sample and get a reasonable picture of the state of TSA competence (or lack thereof) nation-wide.
Jun 9, 2015, 1:04 pm
#89
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
Earlier, Rebecca Roering, an assistant TSA federal security director at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the agency suffers from low morale. She said this is in part the result of agency leadership, composed of too many former commercial airline executives “placing more emphasis on customer service and passenger wait times than on security and detection rates.”
Hmmm....so rather than tell checkpoint TSOs to put their cellphones down, stop the personal chat and start actually focusing on the job at hand, we want the pax to be more accepting of barking, rudeness, gratuitous karate chops, punitive bag searches and confiscations.
Jun 9, 2015, 1:43 pm
#90
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
He also said the undercover agents who got the fake explosives and banned weapons past the checkpoints on 67 of 70 tries were inspector general auditors, not members of a special unit or so-called “red team” with detailed knowledge of TSA security systems and how to defeat them, as previously reported.