Your point, if any?? :confused:

Big Business: Competition
TSA: Government-mandated monopoly

Big Business: Employees and company officers increasingly more liable for misconduct.
TSA: No accountability unless caught and prosecution still might not result.

Big Business: Crimes committed by employees done largely on private property.
TSA: Crimes committed by employees done on public property

Incorrect. Cannot airports these days decide to return to that fine private security force that reigned pre-9/11? Maybe a few will even speak English, but that is for another thread.

Am confused how the TSA statement you made does not apply to Big Business. Ah, that's right - more and more have been voluntarily reporting straight to court and turning themselves in. I'll Google that in a few

This part may be true, but so what? Your rant applies to so many facets of the US that it is silly to expect perfection out of one certain segment to the exclusion of others.

There should be zero tolerance of any theft; TSA, Air Carrier Baggage Handlers or anyone. By the way there is theft in FedEx, UPS and USPS also.

Under your analogy:

The USPS should be disbanded because letters get lost or take longer than normal to be delivered.

NASA should be disbanded because they miss a takeoff schedule.

Electric Companies should be disbanded because you loose your power for a while.

I personally agree that baggage should be screened in front of the passenger then locked but what we found is that passengers do not want to be bothered. They want to drop it off and get going.

Until the government is not calling all the shots, that's no real alternative.

Companies face oversight. The TSA does not.

It is a particularly disgusting that this form of "organized crime" occurs on public property, where people should be free from such activities.

It's hard to buy any arguments that raise comparisons between private misdeeds as does law dawg or inspectors in other countries as does TSAMGR without the thought constantly coming to mind that these are people who have been sworn to serve and protect us.
Over the years I have maintained friendships with relatively high level law enforcement officials who themselves would have found these actions beyond abhorrent and, if they happened in their bailiwicks, would have considered it such a humiliating blot upon their services that they would never stop dealing with the problem until the culprits were expunged and there was reasonable certainty that there would be no recurrence.
Here, all we have is bald faced expressions of "See, it happens everywhere" and bloated out-of-control ad hominem attacks on critics.

Ad hominem attacks? I argue with facts, figures and examples. We may disagree about the what and when but I have not attacked you except when you do things like call feds criminals, sacks of ballast, etc. I also was the first to say thank you for your apology and noted I could raise the bar a little as well in the discourse.

As far as malfeasence, I am all for catching and punishing culprits. What I find silly though is the unrealistic expectation of perfection and, when that unrealistic standard is not met, to demand the agency's disbanding. There is no such thing as perfection and never will be.

And I find it somewhat hypocritical to accept one standard for one group and another, particularly unrealistic one, for another group.

You seem to only demand higher levels of conduct from gov't types. I demand it from ALL people in positions of authority, business, gov't or otherwise.

And when it happens, there is recourse for the customer. All of those companies have addressed theft problems and have handled most claims quickly. Also, there is a choice for consumers. Not so for passenger baggage screening.

There are some passengers who DO want to be bothered. And everyone should be offered the choice, every time. After the baggage has successfully passed screening, it should be locked (if the passenger desires) and not opened under any circumstance until the passenger gets it back.

The TSA has been stonewalling passengers for almost 3 years. No private company could get away with that unless they were a government-mandated monopoly. Also, there is a very quick solution that the TSA arrogantly refuses to implement - checked baggage should only be opened in the presense of the passenger if she/he desires it.

The title was "Not only in the US". Get it right if you are going to quote it.

Appearently you have a problem with me (though you know nothing of me) and feel it is your mission to misquote and misinterpret my postings. Perhaps if you actual read them without blinders on you would see I agree that theft of any kind, anywhere is intolerable.

I agree with you that the passenger should be offered the opportunity to be there for their checked baggage. If they refuse then they takes their chances.

But there are LOTS of private companies that "stonewall". Hell, lets start with the airlines themselves....

Do you have a choice of which Internal Revenue Service you use?

I agree that claims should be handled quicker and the theft problem needs to be addressed no matter how big or small it may be.

WN at one of my airports ( ;) ) wants to go to a full drop and go checked baggage system. I have expressed my concerns that there has to be at least one ETD available for persons who want to be there when their baggage is screened.

There was no attempt to quote it, merely to analyze and interpret its implications and nuances. As they say in the courtrooms, "the thing speaks for itself" and I guess we'll just let it do that.
As far as the second paragraph above is concerned, I would guess from reading milepost #15 in this thread that you have a way of inducing lots of people to develop problems with you sooner or later.

This is an example of addressing the issue. ^

In a previous post, I stated that the TSA should address the issue or be disbanded. Addressing the issue (and hopefully others) is a fine solution to this problem.

...umptions on your part

I guess just you since #15 was directed at you because you are purposely misquoting. It looks to me that your attacks are some sort of attempt at self gratification to help your self esteem. In your mind if I have a problem with you I now have a problem with everyone. My sympathies to you.

If you don't like my posts then don't read them.

OK, that's enough, time to ignore you.

And because of that, the Justice Department has decided to "do business" with Enron.