If getting caught doing so could result in a complaint to the airline employing my security firm, my bosses, and then me, then most likely not. A firm whose customers can quickly replace it with another is likely to employ managers that would fire me quickly for behavior that angers its customers.

But if the people employing me only had the power to do so because they had forcibly taken control of their position, threatening any airline or airport that does not submit to their presence with violence, and threatening others to pay them money so that they can do what they do, then I probably would stop the screening line so I could call co-workers over to laugh at people's stuff.

I'd also probably sleep on the job, complain regularly, treat people disrespectfully, and do all kinds of things that I'd likely been doing all my life leading to my having to work for a coercive mob like the TSA in the first place. In fact, such an employer would be perfect for me since it would have almost no incentive to fire me since its "customers" (or, subjects) can't fire it, unlike McDonald's and the few non-coercive private companies I'd been able to temporarily land much lower-paying jobs with before finding the TSA.

I don't see how this could be true, unless pax had a choice of security provider through which they could be screened. And the thought of thatjust makes me shudder: one's enough, thanks.

Why would this assumption hold true in a monopoly scenario? No "customer" (e.g. airport) could easily replace one security agency with another, given the fact that any disruption of security services would lead to total chaos.

Further, the only body that could possibly oversee a private airport security company would be the government, who would 1) add a layer of bureaucracy to the process, and 2) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, due to budgetary concerns.

The passengers might not have the choice in who provides security, but the airlines and airport operators would. And these are people with a much greater incentive to respond positively to passengers' complaints than the TSA will ever have.

True monopoly only comes from government. And that's what I am opposing. Without the TSA being forced upon people, the airport operators could and likely would hire a new firm to provide the security if the airlines and their customers were constantly complaining about the current provider.

The only body that needs to oversee the security is the airport operators and airlines. There is no need for the state to monopolize this task. It does so simply for the benefit of its controllers and their hired hands; to the detriment of the much larger population.

If govenment service is like it was when I worked for Uncle Sugar in the 1970s, they don't need a union. 1 year keeping your nose clean and you got "career" status. You were darned near bulletproof. Barring some violation of law, or a massive layoff (oop, that's RIF in civil serviceese), you were untouchable. And if you belonged to a protected group (I leave it to your imagination), you were superman (or woman).

These people don't need to fear for their jobs if they act in a manner that would get any of us fired, because they already have job security that we outside of government can only dream of.

And I've watched this behaviour only in the US. Every other country that I've traveled to has screeners who behave in a professional and polite manner. What's wrong with our people? I really hate going near a commercial airport just for this very reason.

I agree, but I simply don't think that this is viable in today's political climate. No politician in either the US or Canada would survive any suggestion that security could and should be delegated to a private agency. And, indeed, there is a strong argument to be made in Canadian constitutional law that it would be unlawful to remove airport security from the purvue of the federal government.

IMO, the agency is staffed by far too many ex-cops and retired military/war heroes who foolishly believe that by serving as airport screeners that they are actually defending the nation and that you get what you want from people by yelling at them, as if they were outnumbered by bad guys in the hood rather than simply looking for guns and bombs in suitcases and on one's person.

In most other countries I've visited over the past 5.5 years, the screeners are quiet, polite and usually somewhat deferential toward the travelers.

1 yr. career conditional, three years career status.

The first two should be yes, the last no. A security person should never "defer" to the screened.

I realize that I may have had different experiences than you but Australia and the UK were not polite, quiet or deferential the past 5 times i've been there in the last two years. In fact twice in the UK i've had to call a supervisor because the screener decided he was going to dial a number on my cellphone to make sure it wasn't a detonator. I almost lost it both times but I didn't want to spend a night in a lovely LHR jail.

There are many immoral and destructive things that are done because the correct answer is not politically viable.

I'm not really interested in what is politically viable.

Sounds like you live under men enforcing a flawed constitution as well then. That makes two of us.

Our United States Constitution is not flawed. The interpretation and enforcement of that wonderful document is flawed, because humans are interpreting and enforcing it.

What do you expect, he/she is a texas dog.

Clearly these were inexperienced screeners. A dildo inside of checked luggage is mild, very mild, compared to the other things we find. After a while, I guess we just don't react to these sort of things anymore and take it all in stride.

I have to share a story. Unfortunately, the composition and density of these little rubber wonder toys will often trigger the CTX machine. And unlike other items where the alarm image may "bleed," the image is crystal clear and leaves nothing to the imagination of the source of the alarm. When this happened once, the CTX operator was obligated to call for a bag check, and when the physical search screener saw the image, the CTX operator merely said, "what you see is what you get," meaning, yup, that's right, it's exactly what you think it is. The owner of the bag was a gentleman accompanied by two women. Once he saw the screener reach for the item, he backed off and walked away as if he suddenly had to make an important phone call on his mobile. The two ladies, however, remained and giggled as the screener took ETD samples of the two-headed novelty. I have to say that my screener showed extraordinary professionalism and self-discipline throughout this encounter. Then, as he packed everything back into the bag, one of the ladies told him with a wink, "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."

Seeing as how this TSAer most likely wasn't the person who came up with the liquid insanity, I don't see how the personal attack was warranted.

Deferential means respectful or courteous.