I wonder how much of it is a liability issue though. Did the gov't guarantee that the airport was immune from liability if they switched? Did they say that security would still be paid for by the feds if they switched to private? Gotta wonder how much of it was financial and CYA.

I know there were 5 ... SFO was the first one that came to mind. ;)

I think they take customer service more seriously and there's more accountability. For one thing, there isn't the red tape that's involved at the federal level to try to get rid of a bad apple. I think they have more freedom there. I also think that with that accountability that customer service is generally better.

I've generally had a better experience going thru SFO than I have at TSA airports. BWI is especially bad. The bottom line is that people are still paying for security thru their fees. Covenant also knows that it can be replaced by another contractor as well when their contract's up. I think they have a higher incentive to do things better and to provide service. At least with TSA being as PR conscious, I'd at least hope they'd care about a contractor treating pax bad, even if it doesn't care how it treats pax.

I don't disagree that they're still bound by TSA's rules. However, there's a large difference in the manner they're enforced.

Smaller airports have more time on their hands and you're more likely to have bored TSO's are are going to be more thorough. I'm glad you guys caught that many.

Talk to me when Google and Yahoo have to agree to block access to certain search terms in order to do business in our country.

And, by the way, if it gets so bad to the point of bloodshed, we've demonstrated our ability and willingness to do just that if need be. See 1861 and 1776.

You sound more like you want to get the frog out of the water when someone lit a match in the other room.;)

The government already wants the information. Fortunately, they're saying no for now and the judiciary has agreed. They're already trying to censor some things as well, like in Google Earth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4630694.stm
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ust-exami.html
http://boingboing.net/2006/01/19/-do...-requests.html
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...PCKHSCJUNN2JVN
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3753
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/?p=295 (with video)

Now tell me again that stuff isn't cooking and waiting for something like another 9/11 to try to force stuff like this.

Different generations of people. Those people wouldn't have been cowering in fear like they are today. People can't even stomach the possibility of a long term war and want it to be over with quick. What makes you think they would be willing to shed blood when they so willingly give up their freedoms now? "If it keeps us safer ... " or "If I can't have it quick, it's not worth having."

Mock if you like. It doesn't change the fact that stuff's cooking.

I know, I know...and the government orchestrated 9/11 and all the planes were fake too.:eek:

You're right, it IS a different generation of people. Back then people appreciated the freedoms they had and didn't gripe about perceived inconveniences and play them off as perceived lack of freedom.

Nice straw man. I didn't make either point. :rolleyes:

People here appreciate the freedoms they have. That's why they're concerned. We're arguably less free than we were pre-9/11. Believe it, don't believe it. It's up to you.

Among the major US airports, only DCA matches SFO for a good passenger "experience," and I think that is because TSA management knows the DCA is "home turf" and most likely to be seen by those that inhabit Capitol Hill. Every other airport I've visited since the plague of TSA establishment is average at best, and a cross between the Keystone Cops and Eric Cartman's "Respect my authoritay" at worst. I can't count the times I've walked up to people who have been victimized by rude, boorish and officious TSO's and offered to vouch for them should they wish to write a letter of complaint.

I've been a public servant my entire professional life, and TSA is simply an embarrassment to the rest of us.

I've had some bad experiences at DCA. I don't think being Kippie's turf really helps much.

OK. Make the argument.

I anticipate that the things you're going to come up with to demonstrate this loss of "freedom" are going to sound rather silly to me, but I'm willing to be convinced.

Dave

Our communications are now subject to monitoring by domestic agencies without due process.

Our freedom to move about the country unencumbered is now significantly limited.

Just a couple to start.

How so? Prior to the TSA, we still had to show ID at airports - simply to the airline ('revenue protection') rather than the TSA. If you we are considering being unable to take a 20 oz. soda through security being significatly limited, it's time to take a good long look at ourselves.

While rude/boorish/unprofessional behavior by TSA agents is certainly not OK, I've certainly done my share of flying, and I simply dont run across it much, if at all. Perhaps it's because I'm not looking for it.

The private company I am engaged in a transaction with can implement rules as they see fit (and their version of an ID check was cursory, not the ridiculous situation we're faced with these days where many, many valid IDs are considered unacceptable). For the government to implement a rule that allows them to arbitrarily track and control the movement of their citizens is a significant limitation on the ability to travel freely.

IIRC, it was a request from the airline, not a requirement in order to fly.

Except that they didn't. The airlines asked for identification because the government required them to ask, so that each and every passenger's name could be checked against the no-fly list. The TSA basically took the proxy out.

See above for the first part, but, while it may not have been an absolute requirement per se, they still reserved the right to deny you flight privileges for refusing to show ID, pursuant to government directives telling them to do so. Whether or not this was actually ever done or not, I don't know; they were also allowed simply to mark you as a selectee and be done with it. In the interest of not having a screaming passenger in your face, I assume the vast bulk and majority of the time, this was the route that was chosen.

The only difference between then and now is that people didn't know about it, then.

1. I don't know, but I'll try to find an answer out for you. :)

2. No. IIRC, private security checkpoints are paid for by the airport and the airlines. TSA security checkpoints are paid for by the federal government -- but I'll try to find a more definitive answer for you than that.

Gimme a couple days.

False. Your communications have been "subject" to exactly the same monitoring for a long time.
You don't seem to recall that airport screening has been in place for longer than 20 years.
How "else" is your freedom to move around limited?

It appears that I'm going to be correct about the freedom losses being "silly". Oh well.
Dave