|
Originally Posted by oenophilist
(Post 15058540)
I'll reply to some of the other posts when I get a free moment, but wanted to quickly reply to yours...
I think that you are asking the wrong question. It is not the policies nor procedures that drive my belief that the TSA is necessary: it is the accountability. Private companies are accountable only to shareholder wealth. A quick story that puts it into perspective: when I was at University and worked as an RA, I knew all the campus security, and I knew which ones were good and which ones were either lazy or incompetent. After graduating and taking a job that caused me to travel alot, I used to go through airport security, and on more than one occasion I encounter the lazy or incompetent ones had become airport security with a private firm doing the security checks. And I recall just how inconsistent and poor the security checks were. So when I say that it would be an unmitigated disaster, I am not speaking of the policies or procedures, but rather the accountability of those doing the screening. I would much rather have an agency that has long-term employees performing security than private companies with revolving doors of employees, answering to shareholders above all else. Is it messy? Often. Will people make mistakes? Of course, they are people, just like those in the bureaucracy. Is it risky? Absolutely. But, it is more than that. It is liberty. What we have now is a soft tyranny. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15056594)
They expect orders to be followed without question.
Do you really want that in our airports? Local police - in many areas - are becoming almost para-military. |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 15058726)
Turnover for TSA is the same as it was for private contractors. This disgusting, un-American agency fails every test, including the smell test.
|
Thinking out of the box here, and that have its consequences. (Running on strong meds, sleep deprivation, and on med leave with lots of time to think. Forgive me if this is ridiculous.)
Can the old puffer technology, adapted differently in a more controlled environment, be used at the time of boarding? Once the plane is full and the doors are closed. Circulate air and do an overall plane explosive detection. If the whole plane passes, kick it out of the gate and let it go. If not, re-screen. Gigantic PITA but it may be very rare. How often do the carry on ETD check actually show explosive? Has this been tested and looked at? Short answer please, no technical explainaintion necessary. As in, tried it, did not work. Showed too many false positives. Whatever. This, combined with WTMD, would be simple, if it worked. Just looking for answers. Not that they care. |
I don't think TSA had any desire to make the puffers work.
They are used in many places with success. I honestly believe that TSA had already made the decision to move to Strip Search Machines before the first puffer was taken out of any airport. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15059898)
I don't think TSA had any desire to make the puffers work.
They are used in many places with success. I honestly believe that TSA had already made the decision to move to Strip Search Machines before the first puffer was taken out of any airport. Uh oh.....bad thought here. If found during boarding it would mean a total secure area failure and a terminal dump. Forget it. This is a nightmare waiting to happen. |
There's one key item that's missing from any/all of these suggestions: security liability. Below is merely presumption on my part so grain of salt and all that.
Before 9/11 the airports and airlines that operated out of them were co-responsible for security (the airport hired the screeners and charged the airlines the gate/terminal fees). When "everything" hit the fan that day, suddenly you had everyone (airport operators to airlines themselves) scrambling to minimize/mitigate the lawsuit risks from such a huge security lapse. What's forgotten is there was a significant change in liability assignment as part of the Patriot Act that established the DHS/TSA and thus the government assuming the liability for all commercial airline security. I even want to assert there was a retroactive immunity applied to the airlines solely based upon the potential of deleterious effects on their ongoing operations should negligence lawsuits against them proceed. So yes, "eliminating the TSA" would not happen without the reassignment of liability back to something else other than the government and somehow I don't think you'll get too many commercial airlines to agree to that. To note, some have suggested that any NGO would have an issue with the legality of the administrative searches (as they've been dubbed) but as before 9/11 this had already been hashed out in established case law decisions. With that in mind, this establishes a perimeter you would need to operate within while maintaining liability with the government. Transitioning the TSA away from the intelligence/law enforcement branch of the cabinet would go a LONG way towards alleviating a lot of this scope creep from a search for WEI to all manners of criminality. I'm reminded of how the FCC has been given the ability to establish rules & policies regarding "communications" within the US however they're stymied at numerous points in their charter by the multitude of entities that are associated with "communication" - Internet service providers, ad-supported broadcasters, pay-supported broadcasters, end users. All parties with a vested interest in the outcome are (generally) involved in negotiations and suits are filed, settled, or decided to create the path Congress (perhaps not 100%) envisioned. Why can't we have the same thing with airport/airline security? Somewhat tongue in cheek: the customer is locked into a duopoly of choosing between "Charter Airlines" or "Verizon Airlines" depending upon what level of security they've chosen to apply to their flights. :D |
Originally Posted by bfetch
(Post 15061032)
What's forgotten is there was a significant change in liability assignment as part of the Patriot Act that established the DHS/TSA and thus the government assuming the liability for all commercial airline security. Do you really believe the US government will allow itself to be sued for damages in the event of another incident? And do you think the scumbags "in charge" of TSA will ever be personally accountable for anything with the present system?
Originally Posted by bfetch
(Post 15061032)
So yes, "eliminating the TSA" would not happen without the reassignment of liability back to something else other than the government and somehow I don't think you'll get too many commercial airlines to agree to that.
|
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 15049536)
OP: as others have pointed out, your entire premise is faulty and flawed. Destroying the TSA, jailing its scumbag "leaders", and bringing back Argenbright and Globe will not be a disaster; it will be a victory for civil liberties and the people of this nation and our guests.
|
No need to replace the TSA, just the DHS and TSA senior leadership. Then, from the top, dictate some sanity at the checkpoints, like this:
Primary: WTMD, baggage x-ray, ETD as necessary. No more carnivals. Secondary (alarms, SSSS, and random pickings): bag check and European-style security interview Tertiary (interview "fail"): choice of pat-down or NoS I see lots of pros and few cons. The primary rolls back most of the security theater that was added by that idiot Kip Hawley. The secondary replaces a physically invasive screening with a psychologically stressful, but more effective, one. Existing BDOs can be re-trained to conduct interviews. Maybe they'll actually start being effective in this new role. Relegating body searches to tertiary restricts the most invasive procedures to the smallest subset of flyers. I'm aiming for fewer than 20 physical searches per day, nationwide. Yes, an interviewer can abuse power and kick a passenger to tertiary if they don't like his/her attitude. As this already happens today, we're not making the situation any worse. As for language barriers for international visitors, yes, that's a legitimate issue. |
Sounds like most here are not too pleased with the TSA and I can only imagine a vast majority of the general public would feel the same. Can we actually do something about it? Something at least to get the ball rolling? I mean all of the "security theaters" have only gotten worse ever since DHS & TSA were created, and I can't imagine what it would be like 5 to 10 years from now if they are allowed to continue unfeathered. Any ideas/suggestions?
LAX |
Originally Posted by gj83
(Post 15052437)
Millions of people get on buses, trains, and subways every day in the US with no screening.
|
Originally Posted by oenophilist
(Post 15045986)
I've heard here and on other forums that the TSA should be eliminated. But what I don't understand is, with what do we replace it? Are people suggesting that giving airline security over to private firms is the right approach? In my mind, this would be an unmitigated disaster that would set us back by a decade. Reform the TSA? Absolutely! But replace it? I just don't get the argument.
What argument is there AGAINST having a federal agency that is responsible for airline security, versus putting it into the hands of private companies? |
Speaking of technology didn't the puffer machines WORK? (I know they broke down) Wouldn't it make more sense to work the bugs out?
|
Originally Posted by txrus
(Post 15046354)
Bolding above mine. Why? Why would this be an 'unmitigated disaster'? How would we be set back a decade?
You seem to be implying that they only thing that has prevented a repeat of the hijackings in Sept '01 is the TSA? If that is the case I'll ask you the same question that has been asked, repeatedly, of our self-proclaimed TSAers on this board-what is the 1 policy or procedure, instituted soley by the TSA, that had it been in effect on 9/10/10 would have prevented the hijackings that took place the next day? Just 1 & your answer can't include anything done by the airlines or the FAA. Don't worry if you can't answer that-the self-proclaimed TSAers haven't been able to, either. Do you know why? That's because nothing the TSA has done would have prevented the hijackings. Not. One. Thing. The hijackings suceeded because 4 pilots, following company policy at the time, cooperated w/the hijackers, allowing the hijackers to not only gain entry to the flight deck, but also control of the planes. Airline policy now states the door remains locked no matter what is going on in the cabin & the plane lands as soon as possible. THAT is what will prevent future hijackings, not the TSA's War on Water, Shoe Carnivals, or the Nude-O-Scopes. What most of us have advocated for is a return to sanity (w/all due respect to Messers Stewart & Colbert) when it comes to aviation security. Keep the federal oversight, but lose the theater. There are already airports that have contracted out checkpoint security & dumped the TSA (SFO comes to mind). Expand that model but w/real accountability for both the gov't agency providing the oversight as well as the front-line contractors. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.