Does anyone have any insight on how the TSA policies might change depending on who is elected in November?

I'm thinking that they probably wouldn't change too much no matter who is elected. However if Ashcroft is no longer in control, I think most here would agree that it would be a good thing for all travelers.

Kerry is pro-tsa, Bush is pro-tsa.

I dont know...

Many senators are pro-tsa.

I just hope more change is going to be WITHIN TSA, as new managment and more control... will help settle the SOP work more effectively with screeners.

I don't think that we can underestimate the change in tone that a new administration could bring, regardless of the fact that both candidates are pro-TSA. Bush seems to see us as engaged in a multi-generational war on terror. Kerry, in his public statements, has spoken about moving toward a state where terrorists are seen as a nuisance, not a day to day concern. To me, this means that a Kerry administration might lead to an eventual easing of "security show" measures, but I think that the truth is, it wouldn't be completely in his hands. If there was another terrorist incident, we'd be back to current dog and pony show regardless of which administration is in power.

Note to the mods: could you do us a favor and keep this thread open as long as it is civil? It is about travel&security.

My opinion on this is that, as stated by the two previous posters, there is little difference in approach between the two candidates on TSA issues. However, it is likely that many of the issues we discuss in this forum will sooner or later come before the US Supreme Court. I believe that there is a vast difference in the kinds of justices the two candidates would appoint. I have a preference for justices who would protect our Constitutional rights to freedom and liberty, and I will vote for the candidate who I think is more likely to appoint those kinds of justices.

As mentioned above, the replacements for the Supreme Court are going to be very important. Justices who think we have less rights than the Constitution lays out are going to uphold the erosions. I have a pretty strong opinion on who is more likely to appoint justices like this.

What will really change things with the TSA and other government agencies is the tone of the politicians we elect. Politicians who are always trying to scare the public and use fear as a tool are more likely to continue and expand draconian measures.

If we elect people who want to keep us safe, but aren't going to fearmonger in the process, we'll be better off. Politicians have a big affect in setting the tone among the general public, and the public's attitude will either support or oppose the erosion of rights and privacy.

IMHO, the whole security set-up as we know it will be going away provided nothing happens aboard an aircraft that rivals 9/11.

Just like any government agency, budget cutbacks will be inevtiable, then we'll go back to privatized security. I do not see this happening in the immediate future, but I wouldn't rule it out in about three years or so...again, providing nothing else happens.

The only two things I can see that would accelerate this would be more Ted Kennedy no-fly situations happening to the important people and/or technology.

Not to start a political flamewar, but I do think if Bush is re-elected, the TSA will be around longer than if Kerry were to be elected.

The problem is that Joe Sixpack thinks the TSA is a good idea. The best thing for the TSA and civil liberties is for the administration and the Senate to be of different parties. Given the track record, I'd favor a Republican administration and a Democratic Senate. I'd favor a Democratic administration just to see Ashcroft out on the street. The only way to erode the assumed authorities of the TSA is through federal court rulings, because the TSA certainly won't do it on their own.

I agree. And like I said above, the politicians set the tone. If they try to scare us, Joe Sixpack is going to want to throw away more rights and privacy.

If we elect people who aren't going to use fear to keep us in line, the public will swing back in the direction of liberty.

The Economist said last week that 40% of Americans think torturing people is acceptable. We shouldn't think that change needs to wait for Joe Sixpack - there are plenty of examples of significant advances in human rights being accomplished against the will of the majority. (abolition of slavery, school integration, female suffrage, et cetera)

Here is a related question. I'm not sure whether it should be a separate thread or not.

Many of us complain about security measures that are more for show than effect, especially considering all of the holes in the system. How many of you think that the these measures have to be there even if they are just show? When I say "have to be there" I mean, people would freak out if they weren't there. Is there a sense in which all of this *is* necessary but just to pacify a squeamish public?

Some of you fail to realize that there WILL be a hike in ticket prices for those who are eager of privatization. Also, there will be NO further technology placed, at least now we have many pilot programs and are in testing... but imagine a private company?

Maybe people would be scared. But maybe we should work towards a population that doesn't get scared if we aren't dressing windows...

How so? $5 per passenger per trip should more than cover the 20 secods through security. The standards wouldn't be relaxed.

My recollection (I don't have a citation, but I am pretty sure it can be located quickly) is that the $5 per person has no impact on the actual cost of security, which is about $80/person. I am not so sure that Joe Sixpack is as stupid as people say. But, if we charged $80/person (and let everyone know that it was going to $100/person to cover new technology) I wonder how people would feel?

Uh, you do realize that Attorney General Aschroft runs the Department of Justice and that aviation security is the province of the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Secretary Tom Ridge? The Attorney General's influence over aviation security is quite limited if not non-existent.