Now that I have time, here's my response to the latter half.

Sadly, the government is infringing on the freedom of movement. There is the no fly list and the selectee list for starters which is completely messed up.

Secondly, the TSA wants to implement Secure Flight as a replacement to CAPPS. Instead of the airlines handling passenger data, the TSA will be handling passenger data. This agency we are supposed to trust has already violated such trust and lied to the public by obtaining and using such data when they twisted the arms of certain airlines for it.

There have been other data grabs through use of national security letters as well which directly affected travel in the United States. For example, the DHS demanded info on everyone travelling and staying in Las Vegas a couple years back. This information was used secretly and run through secret databases.

Secure Flight will be a huge data grab for the TSA, should it ever see the light of day. We are already on a slippery slope with the current administration when it comes to civil liberties. As much as I love the US, we have some serious problems right now as we go down this slope.

I've travelled to nations where oppression exists and news is controlled by 'the state media'. I've seen poverty and living conditions no one should ever have to endure. I've also been to nations that were once under the Soviet Bloc; while they're free today, some things with the government & how things are done have been slow to change.

Once rights and civil liberties are taken away, it isn't easy to get them back. Look at recent history with WWII. We may not be close to such conditions as you mention in your above post, but we're certainly on a slide downwards.

All the information and secret databases setup for international travel into the US, which also affect US citizens gives me the chills. Just think, we all have computer generated terrorist target scores. Should that be part of a free society? I think not.

Getting back to the TSA, it is there for airport/airline security. However, it is also being used for other missions such as drug enforcement and FINCEN related matters. The higher ups running the TSA are baffons.

Last, why the heck are we still on "orange" with the DHS alert christmas tree? Are there really all these big, bad, imminent threats? Ooops, I forgot -- we have elections coming up and the administration needs to keep everyone scared. Nothing better than scaring the crap out of the public; it justifies the big DHS and TSA budget. It makes John and Jane Doe feel better when they hear about things like Secure Flight; it makes all of these secret programs, when uncovered, like passenger target scoring more palatable to the public.

You forgot to mention that they can't even secure the private information of their own employees.

I fully agree that better technology is needed (along with some technology for detecting dangerous liquids). Such improvements would be very welcome, because they would improve security without causing inconvenience to travelers. Also, cargo, mail and anything else being brought airside should be scanned, and all airside workers should get exactly the same scrutiny as passengers and aircrews.

My problem with the "security" theater is that your bosses (and unfortunately, their counterparts in the EU too) too often push for improving security at any cost, often subjecting air travelers to great inconvenience for a miniscule gain in security. Security, while important, is not everything. In daily life, we frequently trade some amount of security for more liberty, comfort or financial advantage, for example, by making tourist trips to less safe countries or building cheaper houses that cannot survive hurricanes. I suppose you don't wear a bulletproof jacket and helmet while driving, although shootings of motorists are much more frequent than terrorist attacks on airlines. Even in the plane business, the government does not force the airlines/manufacturers to implement every improvement that could improve the safety of air travel, but first makes a careful cost/benefit analysis.

Unfortunately, the TSA leadership seems to miss the big picture and concentrate on the security improvements only. Also, there is no recognizable effort from the TSA to implement security procedures in a way that causes the minimum inconvenience to the travelers. It is (IMHO rightfully) percepted as a complete disregard for the traveler's needs.

Look at the liquid ban. It caused great inconvenience to travelers, but how big is the security benefit? You can still bring any amount of any liquid by simply going back and forth through security and filling a large bottle left airside. It's too much hassle to bring shampoo through security this way, but a determined terrorist would probably have the patience for it. So at the end, while the government did something, it didn't bring a lot of advantages.

Instead of the liquid ban, the TSA could just have just brought dogs to sniff the luggage for suspicious liquids. This would calm nervous travelers (the govt is indeed doing something for safety!) and might deter some would-be terrorists much better than the present liquid ban. The exact capabilities of sniffing dogs would be a state secret. Later, when enough dogs are properly trained, it might even help discover explosives and catch terrorists (something that the current ban cannot). But no, they had to do it in a way that caused the most inconvenience.

Another thing to consider is that excessive security procedures might actually attract terrorists to air travel. Just look at the London bombings. There was a successful terrorist attack on the subway, and a failed terrorist attack on planes using liquids. While the loss of life is terrible, for the vast majority of people, the failed attack caused much more inconvenience than the successful one - precisely because of the security "improvements" that followed it.

Riding the subway hasn't changed after the attack. There is no liquid (or solid) ban, no screening and no no-ride list. Exactly the same attack is possible today. If it gets repeated (I hope not), it will cause great grievance to the victims and their relatives, but no one else.

An attack on an airliner however, even a failed one, is likely to cause new security madness and inconvenience millions of people worldwide. So the message terrorists get is, to cause the greatest harm, they should continue targeting air travel.

TSA's procedures are based on Constitutional principles. I know you find that very difficult to believe; however, the legality of each TSA procedure has been reviewed by staff lawyers. There have been a number of TSA procedures challenged in court as well. This isn't illegal government intrusion. If your argument is based on general principle, then that's something that can be applied to everything else ranging from sales taxes to seat belt laws. And this perspective can't be debated logically because it doesn't recognize the validity of laws passed by Congress. It then becomes an emotional argument, which, IMHO, is the root of many of these disagreements.

I'm just challenging the hyperbole about how we've become a nation oppressed by tyrants. The people who truly believe this are either naive about what truly is tyranny or they're just exaggerating.

My comment was directed specifically against an individual who constantly characterizes me and other TSOs as jack-booted thugs who take some sort of perverse pleasure out of abusing our authority over hapless travelers. I find those comments tiresome and decided to call him on it...much to my chagrin, I might add.

LOL. And I am unpersuaded by your comments that our Constitution is in shreds. I respect a healthy disagreement over the policies of this current administration; however, to portray it in such a fashion is truly disingenuous to a sound debate. Our Constitution is still in great shape. The checks and balances still work. The remarkable thing about our government over the past seven years is that we've had a relatively even balance between the two major political parties, and we've had a pretty even balance on the major issues. No one party has had a decisive advantage over the other. I see it; I'm genuinely surprised that you don't.

Liberty is very fragile, and we should protect it jealously. Nothing I've said has contradicted this. All I ask for is a little bit of perspective and context. Perhaps I expect too much.

^^

Excellent post. As you point out, terrorists targetting commercial aviation succeed even when they fail or even when their plots are too fantastic to be believed by anyone posssessing any critical thinking skills. If you want to make the world dance - keep the focus on airplanes, because we have plenty of government idiots (Chertoff, Hawley and their predecessors) to guarantee that 44,000 screeners will make life more difficult for everyone in the airport, even for no reason at all.

I agree with you. I think the selectee list and no-fly policy is a wasted effort. As I've stated previously, I don't see the selectee and no-fly policies ever going away simply because they've become a political sacred cow by virtue of the 9/11 Commission.

Again, I agree with you. I think there's a way to streamline the screening process without resorting to surrendering all sorts of personal data to TSA or any other government agency. But first things first: get rid of the selectee and no-fly programs. And that's the problem: no politician would ever dare go on record making such a proposal at the risk of being labeled "soft" on security.

I will agree that this is certainly a slippery slope, but I don't see it as part of a government conspiracy to steal away civil liberties. I see it more as a result of bureaucracy and careerism as a new government agency tries to define itself. I'm not condoning this; I'm just saying that this isn't a concerted effort to infringe upon our liberties. At any rate, I agree with you that this needs to be pulled back under control.

No argument here; I agree. And I expect these things to be challenged in court and the policy to be redirected back to a better path.

There may be some parts of TSA participating in these efforts; I don't know of any, but I'm only in one small corner of the world. If there are any airport TSOs involved in these other efforts, it's purely news to me.

Been asking myself the same thing.

I have two drivers licenses, each with a slightly different name. Both were legitimately acquired. I use the "wrong" one when flying. No one has successfully caught the error even though it does not precisely match my other credentials.

No one required to work normal hours examining thousands of different IDs can be expected to catch anything other than gross differences from normal.

I think you will find that many TSOs agree with you. If it goes on an airplane, it needs to be screened. If anyone is going to get close to an airplane, that person needs to be screened. And I don't disagree with the points made about cargo. Problem is that the politicians and bureaucrats need to make those changes and all the bi*ching in the world won't change a thing until they take action. That's why I limit my discussions to passenger screening and checked luggage screening.

I'm disappointed that the overall government hasn't learned one damned lesson from the Cold War. The security policies were purely risk avoidance oriented. I remember when computers were encased in metal boxes designed to cut down on the emanations of electromagnetic signals that theoretically could be detected by receivers and deciphered into collectible intelligence by the bad guys. The problem is that someone would have to be standing practically next to the computer with a device the size of a vacuum cleaner to accomplish the evil deed. Point is that we spent billions of dollars protecting against the theoretical rather than the more likely threat. Then at one point, the security philosophy changed towards a new concept called risk management. Took a while for those of us brought up in risk avoidance to get used to the idea, but I've been a risk management believer ever since.

That's why I agree with your general points about how TSA goes overboard in its procedures. A risk management approach would periodically screen shoes either by x-ray screening and/or ETD screening as opposed to screening every pair of shoes. I've already discussed how I would handle screening liquids and gels in other threads. Point here is that there are plenty of opportunities for TSA to modify its screening methodologies to a more practical approach rather than clinging to its current model. Takes strong leadership at the top to break the current paradigm, and to be quite honest, I don't see it. I'm not just being critical of the leadership at TSA and/or DHS. I'm being critical of our current generation. People are afraid to take decisive action except when it comes to extreme situations. And even then, it's doubtful because of the fear of liability and other wimpy considerations.

I don't know what it's going to take for TSA to change its course. I think it's bigger than TSA and see it as a cultural issue.

Well, for what it's worth...

BigDogBart wrote:

>>To be honest folks, if it were up to us, there would be NO liquids, gels or aerosols allowed through the checkpoint. This concession was made to make your travelling experience easier, not harder.<<

The notion that the liquids/gels/aerosols rule is a "concession" or some kind of indulgence granted by the TSA smacks of an institutional arrogance that should have no place in the US.

In contrast, I don't get this kind of vibe from "Original" Bart's posts.

Well noted! I don't always see eye to eye with "Original" Bart, but I respect the way he represents his positions.

I will get flamed for this & probably banned from Flyertalk, but I take great offense to this statement. To think that the TSA "GRANTS" me privileges or indulgences is offensive. These people are hired to do a job of "protecting" the traveling public. YOU WORK FOR ME!!!!!!! When did TSA have the authority to "GRANT" me anything? I'll keep my stiff arm at my side (read 1942 Germany) for now.

This is the same sort of c**p that makes the informed traveling public loath the idoicy that is the TSA!!!

You keep you lies (baggy c**p) a secret that cannot be divulged to the public for fear that someone will use it against us.

{flame doused by moderator}

Bottom line...TSA at the airport is a "comfort zone" for the infrequent traveler, but a sorry joke for anyone who flies on a semi-regular basis.

For the sake of overall forum civility, please check the personal attacks at the door.

Thanks.

----------
essxjay
TS/S moderator

Yes, the c&b apparatus is intact. And I'm in essential alignment with your outlook, Bart -- except for the shape of the Constitution. C&B is not much of a factor when the question of Due Process itself, as in Hamdi, is on trial.

What's troubling upon review of the nearly 4-1/2 years of subject titles in this forum is that annual security spending rockets ever higher with nil to no abatement of the hassles for the flying public. Why is that? If more $ = better safety then I'd love to know who all these people are sleeping better at night than me. There must be hundreds of thousands of them given the billions dropped. (And you know, I marvel at how the Colgate-Palmolive company managed never to be implicated in a binary explosives plot before last August -- 4.6 oz. tubes of toothpaste in the pax cabin, I ask you!) The avalanche of nonsense coming out of the TSA press office is just shameful.

The problem is with the view that it's a true two-party system. It's not. If the Politburo had had a Communist Party A and a Communist Party B, and switch them in power from time to time, we would still have a very powerful Soviet Union today. I see no benefit to "no one party [having] a decisive advantage over the other." I see the current impasse' as an abject failure.

I'm not jealous of the liberty we have left; I mourn what's lost. Run with that perspective for a spell and get back to us about what context we're dropping. I'll be curious to know.
.
.
.
.

Welcome BigDogBart, and I hope you won't be scared away by the volume of passionate response that sometimes require hand slapping from the overworked moderators.

While I share a lot of the concerns about inefficiencies in air travel security that have been raised, my personal top concern is that with every successful or nearly successful attack the knee jerk response is always to throw more money at air travel security and to add further travel restrictions. I am concerned about loss of my freedom from this pathway probably more than anything else. When a government agency is created it will continue on for all eternity and will continue the performance of specific tasks for many decades after they are no longer needed. The rate of increase of taxation of flyers has, I believe, been even faster than the rate of increase in energy costs. The more money that is taken off the top of the cost of a ticket, the more impact there is on my ability to fly. And the more money that TSA is given, the more difficult my travel experience is likely to become through increased security measures and hassles (even though I am willing to accept the premise that the majority of TSA folks are not consciously trying to waste passengers time with frivolous security measures).

I like freedom - a lot. The ability to travel freely is one of the freedoms I cherish most. I want air travel security to be managed from a global and long-term perspective with the understanding that the only way to avoid risk completely is to die first. And, in spite of all that has happened, I've got a lot less chance of getting hurt when traveling by air (even including the 2001 stats) than in a lot of other activities. I'd rather take some risk of getting hurt or dying (which is a part of living anyway) than to live life seeking the impossible objective of risk-free existence - now that's not living free at all!

Goodness, look at the time stamp! Do you even sleep?