Is screening about to get LESS secure?
 

It is reported on king5.com that to "speed up" security - hasn't TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger told us it is about security and not speed - that private contractors are being sought to supplement TSA.

Will private contractors make security any safer? Is "speed up" motivated security about security or convenience?

The Inspector General for Homeland Security, John Roth, has testified about airport security:

We ran multiple tests at eight different airports of different sizes, including large category X airports across the country, and tested airports using private screeners as part of the Screening Partnership Program. The results were consistent across every airport. .... We found layers of security simply missing.

So security simply missing under TSA actual control and under (profit motivated) Private contractors. What is not realized is that EVEN with (profit motivated) private contractor TSA Management is still in control.

What we know about TSA Managements approach to security is for quite sometime Management was more concerned about efficiency outcomes (most likely lines) at the expense of diligent resolution of alarms. TSA also had "disproportionate focus on efficiency and speed in screening operations rather than security effectiveness." This approached was stated by Peter Neffenger, as recently as March 1, 2016.

We also know that TSA Management will seeks to PUNISH those who speak up about security issues. TSA Management punished those who spoke up through involuntary transfers. Those who spoke up about security lapses were told transfer or leave the TSA. TSA Management culture is reported as being a “double standard exists for senior leaders and promotes a shut up and move up”.

This is TSA Management, "double standards", "shut up and move up", retribution against those who raise concerns about security, and over all an approach that is reported to put the public at risk.

How should the public expect a profit motivated contractor to react to TSA Management? Should the public believe that a profit motivated "security" provider that is overseen by the TSA will challenge TSA Management concerning security issues. Should the public believe that a profit motivated security provider hired under the stated purpose to "speed up" will provide security?

If the 'private contractors' are paid appropriate (minimum) wages to stack tubs and stand guard in front of a closed WTMD, sit guard at an exit or check IDS, then it could help. These are minimum wage tasks and the TSOs currently performing them are vastly overpaid for what they do. How much skill does it take to stack tubs? Does it really require academy training? And any good bouncer can do a better job of checking IDs.

The private contractors would be unnecessary if TSA would emulate the practices of non-US checkpoints, where everyone is expected to work and there are no clusters of security people standing around jacking their jaws or playing with their cellphones instead of working.

I would like to know the connection between Neffenger/TSA brass and any private contractors who might be handed special over-priced-for-the-taxpayer contracts. Is Neffenger going to fund his retirement by making sweetheart deals with private contractors instead of buying new hardware?

Minimum wage in Seattle is between $12 - $13 hour, to increase to $15hr - blue shirt TSA make about $15 - $18 hr depending on location.

Who would pay a private contractor? Is the Airport paying about the money or is TSA paying for it?

The taxpayers and travelers will pay for it.

According to USA.Jobs there are no vacant TSO positions in Seattle.

As long as private contractors have to do what TSA tells them, nothing will improve. The issue is not who is doing the screening, the issue is how the screening is done.
The screening process as currently done in the US and mandated by TSA is wasteful, flawed, unnecessary and less secure then in many other parts of the world.

The screening in the US as done prior to TSAs creation was more secure then what happens now.

TSA (and, I would assume, their private counterparts) are missing 95% of contraband going through checkpoints. What does "less secure" even mean in such a context? :confused: Missing 98%? 100%? How would you tell?
No, what we know is that TSA management is most concerned about their own job security and prestige. They are also concerned about (increasing) TSA's budget - because it enhances their own job security - and about creating lucrative opportunities in the private sector - because it enhances their future career options.

With such serious concerns to address, they don't have time to worry about petty things like efficiency, effectiveness, actual security or similar nonsense.
Indeed, and not just financially.

Yes less secure, because based on passed performance of TSA and it management style, a profit motivated business has more incentive to ignore security issues and to do whatever TSA management tells them to do.

Your personal opinions aside, could you support your claims with documented facts? I do not think there is any evidence of increasing TSA budget.

Neffenger has spoken about how TSA Management was rated. Neffenger even stated that the performance measurement would be reevaluated.

Wut?

The fact - FACT - that TSA is currently asking Congress for budget increases isn't evidence that TSA wants to increase their budget?

OK :rolleyes:

TSA asked to increase screener by 323, that is not 1 additional screener at each airport screened by TSA employees...so how does not adding any noticable of screeners help with Management job security? It does not.

Furthermore, ONLY Congress can get rid of TSA. TSA management have job security; so long as they "shut up to move up". Even at airports with private screeners TSA MANAGEMENT is in charge. See Sai's incident at SFO where TSA Management refused to allow him medically necessary liquids.

It is unfounded that TSA is seeking to increase its bugdet as a job security play by TSA Management.

TSA Management has ZERO incentive to protect the jobs of screeners; why, because TSA management keep their positons and salary under private screening partnership program

Sorry, but if you're trying to make some sort of point, I'm not getting it.

Please demonstrate how TSA budget request creates jobs security for TSA management.

In pretty much any organization, the more staffers, the more managers.

Getting rid of the TSA will be the first step in making our airports more secure.

Until that step happens, our airports will remain completely INsecure.

Care to disclose your source or are you just parroting stats on tests?

Neffenger has admitted that the IG's testing showed TSA to be an abysmal failure in detecting contraband. Hence, one of the reasons for the current slow down and long lines at airports.

Do you dispute those numbers? If so how about some evidence in support.

Maybe you're new here. :rolleyes:
From:
Widespread TSA Failures in Latest DHS Tests
http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-u...ry?id=31434881
and from:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...ectations.html
http://www.fox35orlando.com/news/loc...36990591-story

Of course, you could argue that the media was mistaken. But then you'd have to explain why John Pistole admitted that 95% was unacceptable, rather than claiming it was a mistake. And why Melvin Carraway lost his job over something that didn't happen:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...44e_story.html
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...50602?irpc=932
Furthermore, as I wrote at the time:

Sorry, I can't even figure out what you're trying to say. First, why would "a profit-motivated business" have incentive to do [things] based on TSA's past performance and TSA's management style? How does TSA's performance and management style have any influence on what a private business is going to do?

Second, "ignoring security issues" and "doing what TSA tells them" should be contradictory (in theory, at least). Or are you saying that TSA management would tell them to ignore security issues? :confused:

Third, a profit-motivated business is driven - pretty much by definition - by a desire to make profits. It's not at all clear that ignoring security issues (and doing whatever TSA management tells them to) are going to lead to profits.

A profit-motivated business would supply adequate (note: adequate, not excessive, over-the-top, gold-plated) service with the optimum number of staff. If they hire excess staff who stand around (ala TSA), that will cut into profits. If they hire staff for rubbish like the BDO program, that will cut into profits. If they do a poor job of security - either by making it unpleasant for passengers or by failing to prevent a preventable incident, the airports/airlines will complain (after the customers complain to them) and another profit-motivated business will be found to take over the role.
Is an official budget statement from DHS documented enough for you?
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...BIB-MASTER.pdf
That, and the fact that gov't departments since the Pharaohs (probably before) ALWAYS ask for more money this year than last.
Sure, but only in so much as TSA's 5% success rate makes Neffenger look bad, which is ineffective when you're asking for more money to continue sucking, and is bad for his continued career at TSA. He needs the performance measures to improve so he can justify his continued position and more money.

What kind of idiots would throw $7.6 BILLION at something that continues to fail year after year? (Oh, yeah. Those idiots. ;))

Note that he said the measurement would be re-evaluated, not the performance. So, if you fail on *this* scale, you don't need to do better, you just need a smaller scale.

No, it's not the idiots who throw that money at the problem, its the crooks in Washington, who make big money from defense and security contractors throwing money at their campaigns, from investment in such companies, and from lucrative post-political positions with those companies.

If RadioGirl was your boss I bet it would be very hard to BS your way out of a problem.

RadioGirl for TSA Administrator!
:cool:^^^:cool:

I don't know how to explain it better. TSA Management style has demonstrated IT WILL NOT be called out on security issues/violations.

A private security firm would be beholden to TSA Management - that is the LAW; ATSA mandates TSA oversight of private security. The same Management that has demonstrated IT WILL NOT be called out on security issues/violations.

Are you suggesting that private security firm - motivated by profit - would attempt to report security issues/violations to a TSA Management that has shown IT WILL NOT be called out on security issues/violations.

A for profit business has a greater interest - profit - in doing what it is told to do. Does anything suggest to that TSA has righted itself and has purged itself of what seems its retribution focused Management style and that it will take seriously security issues/violations?

So yes, a private company that provide poor service would not last long, maybe not even the duration of a contract. But if poor performance is only measured on customer service metrics, then other more serious poor performance can be easily covered up and remain unknown to the general public.

Prime example, TSA success rate at finding WIE is 5%. Reports from former TSA leadership state that the poor performance of airport screening has been known for a very long time. Yet, the general public only knew how poor it was within the past year.

Not true. It's been common knowledge (and reported) that the Red Team test metric numbers have been abyssmal (well beyond failure), since the creation of the Red Team.

Please provide support for your "truth."

Exactly what "truth" are you questioning?

Where to start? I suppose I am arguing semantics but words are important and JoeBas' statement is actually opinion and exaggeration.

Mostly I am challenging the assertion that it is common knowledge that the red team numbers have been abysmal. The actual results of DHS OI testing (the true "red teams") (not including the IG's testing), are held extremely closely, barely even shared with DHS' congressional oversight committees. So it cannot be common knowledge.

I do agree that it is common opinion the rates are abysmal.

It's pretty easy for some to smuggle at least some restricted WEI past most TSA screening checkpoints. Some "some assembly required" WEIs would have a very high success rate of being missed by the TSA (and most other passenger screening entities). Absent a high proportion of passengers being subjected effectively to ETD of the right sorts, the rates of effective interdiction against some threats would be abysmal, abysmal as reported:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-u...ry?id=31434881

Sort of amusing how the TSA uses some my language in its discussions about itself.

I just Googled "TSA Screening Test Failures" and received 363,000 returns.

Some of these reports cover the same time periods but I think there are enough different accounts that makes it clear that TSA Screening Failures is not only very well known but covers many years.

We can look back at the soldier who had C4 in a backpack that TSA screeners missed, or the TSA tester who defeated DFW TSA screeners and the TSA's almighty Whole Body Imagers multiple times by carrying a handgun through security checkpoints multiple times, and of course the other Red Team and OIG Test results that have leaked to the public. Even Congress has alluded to the abysmal failure rates of TSA screeners.

I suspect if the public knew the whole story that TSA heads would roll. The level of incompetence displayed by the whole of TSA is just mind boggling.

So how much more is needed to classify this as common knowledge?

Does it have to be worse than "According to a report based on an internal investigation, "red teams" with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General were able to get banned items through the screening process in 67 out of 70 tests it conducted across the nation" to be abysmal or common knowledge?

Or the release of information that resulted in the Acting Administrator being fired made the national and local news across the country. Even though that wasn't meant to make it into the public domain I would think that still makes it "common knowledge".

As far as hard evidence:

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-conte...-Testimony.pdf

and from the same document:

continuing

but wait there's more:

Enough?

Don't forget that TSA employees get federal benefits on top of their wages.

Fortunately, the TSA and airport screening is pretty irrelevant in the overall counterterrorism effort. It's very effective at security theater, which keeps Congress, the media, and a large percentage of the American public happy and "feeling safe." The only things that happens at an airport checkpoints are:

1. Catching the amateurs, defined as the guy who forgot he had a gun in his carry-on;
2. Catching common criminals using the cover of an "administrative search".
3. Taking on the mission of human trafficking by demanding that little kids state their names in front of their parents at the ID checker interrogation.

Such a company should report it to Congress. If TSA management is the problem, report the issue to those with oversight of said problem.

The public has been reporting its problems with TSA to Congress for years, all to no avail.

True. Fortunately the people who work for (and with) me are incredibly competent and working on very hard problems. Consequently, the (very few) mistakes are due to the complexity of our work, are therefore quickly acknowledged, forgiven, rectified, and serve to increase our collective knowledge. No one who tried to BS their way out of it would get hired in the first place. (Hint to TSA?)
Thanks for your support, but no. ;)
Problem 1: Living in Washington DC. Been there, done that, got the scars.
Problem 2: Imagine what happens at the approval hearing when they find my FT history. :eek:

You could commute.;)

Thanks Boggie. I was going to do the whole "Let me google that for you" thing, but I think this is sufficient. ;)

If she did, she'd be the first TSA administrator who actually flew commercial on a regular basis.

Who said she would go commercial?

DHS has lots of aircraft at its disposal - but only in rare circumstances would an Administrator get to use one. However, she could hitch rides with the Commandant of the Coasties or with CBP...

One of my Dad's friends used to rate a helo when he was with DoD. Alas, he was never so bold as to bring us along to play golf.

Rated a helo, hmmm. They didn't like that person very much did they.;)