TSA Facing Death By a Thousand Cuts 493
OverTheGeicoE writes "The Transportation Security Administration is getting a lot of negative attention, much of it from the U.S. government itself. A recent congressional report blasted the TSA for being incompetent and ineffective (PDF). A bill to force the TSA to reduce its screening of active duty U.S. military members and their families was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives. After a TSA employee was arrested for sexually assaulting a woman while in uniform, a bill has been introduced to prevent TSA agents from wearing police-style uniforms and badges or using the title 'officer.' The bill's sponsor calls these practices 'an insult to real cops.' The FBI is getting involved by changing its definition of rape in a way that might expose the TSA's 'enhanced pat-down' screeners to prosecution. Lastly, public support for the TSA's use of X-ray body scanners drops dramatically when people realize there is a cancer risk."
About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm... (Score:5, Insightful)
'an insult to real cops.'
Perhaps, if they way cops keep handling these occupy movements are any indication, they don't need any help making themselves look bad.
My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
Motherfucking pet rocks are more efficient than the TSA.
No room for optimism... (Score:5, Insightful)
If what they've done so far has earned them only these relatively feeble stabs at powers they mostly just took during their time anyway(they didn't used to dress up in cop costumes or grope people on the record), exactly what would they have to do to earn a reorganization, or even a replacement? Execute a randomly chosen passenger once a shift, just to show the terrorists our resolve?
Re:Friggen finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they're really not doing anything. As usual, they're only giving the illusion of doing something.
Which is good, since when they actually do something, it's invariably a disaster.
Re:Devil's Advocate Apparently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but despite being created to pay for the Civil War, and then being found unconstitutional, they tossed in the 16th amendment to keep the IRS going. Wonder how long it will be before a TSA amendment is passed. "For the good of the Homeland and Security unto the people under its care..."
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
Motherfucking pet rocks are more efficient than the TSA.
With the added advantage pet rocks keep tigers away too.
Number of terrorists caught by the TSA - ZERO. Number of US Constitutional violations are literally countless and purposely obfuscated. Number of government agency charters which were illegally violated with the creation of Homeland Security, ALL of whom Homeland Security now oversees. Would Homeland Security been able to stop 9/11 today? Absolutely not! The SOLE purpose of Homeland Security is dirty tricks, dirty politics, funnel massive funds into the top 1%, and to "legally" violate the US Constitution.
If our Founding Fathers were alive and in power right now, most of the US government would literally be hanging from a tree or stand in front of a firing squad right now. And that's not hyperbole.
If you support Dems or Republican parties, you hate America and spit on our Founding Fathers.
Re:Devil's Advocate Apparently... (Score:5, Insightful)
You sir (or madam) are the problem with our country. We *do not* trade our rights for the illusion of safety.
Re:Friggen finally (Score:5, Insightful)
More accurately:
Must be an election year coming up, because a bunch of Congressmen are introducing bills that would do shit about stuff we've been complaining about for the past several years. But, these bills will never make it out of committee or be passed.
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
Two questions:
1. How many prohibited objects slip through?
2. Why, then, is the TSA not trumpeting these successes?
Oh, one more...
Are you including guns embroidered onto purses in that 'per day' count?
and ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Explosives.
Soooooo........ where are the trials for the people trying to take explosives onto the planes?
You'd think there'd be all kinds of news reports about that, wouldn't you?
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:3, Insightful)
"TSA catches on average about 5 guns PER DAY at airport screenings, and that's not including knives, explosives, and other prohibited objects."
Yes, unfortunately 99% is Granny's shampoo.
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
"For the good of the Homeland and Security unto the people under its care..."
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our Homeland."
And thus, the Gestapo was formed, and there was much rejoicing.
Re:Friggen finally (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA was formed in 2002, so unless you were pre-emtively complaining there's no need to keep going after nine years.
Huh? It's almost 2012, so if TSA formed in 2002, it's certainly over nine years. I don't know what you count as formation, but the TSA counts it from the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. As far as preemptive complaints, I have no idea how old you are, but I was complaining about airport screening being stupid for at least a decade before 9/11. Before TSA it was a bunch of low paid hoodlums taking revenge on well off travelers. Long lines and rude behavior were common. We were told TSA would be more professional. They are, but they're more professional at being jerks.
What cut? They're not being cut. (Score:4, Insightful)
Federal Agencies never die, they just get re-spun with more responsibility so they can then complain for more funding when their current responsibilities are abandoned.
The examples given in this slashdot article are not cuts, they amount to normal civil-servant bashing and behavior. The only thing surprising is that the unionization of TSA workers isn't the most frightening thing imaginable.
Re:Friggen finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait wait, I know this one.
It was the one who never accomplished anything useful, spent most of his presidency fighting stupid political battles over inconsequential shit, and will be remembered by history books mainly for the magnitude of his failures. That's the one, right?
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and one of those was an embroidered gun that was part of a purse. Look me square in my comment and say with a straight face an embroidered gun constitutes a Terrorist Threat.
Notice how they don't distinguish between real guns, toy guns and blankets with a gun print as well?
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
and that's not including knives
What exactly is this obession with 'sharps' on board anway? What exactly could a 'terrorist' do if they managed to smuggle a hunting (or x-acto) knife on board? I can see the value of banning guns and bombs - They could take down an aircraft - But what exactly can someone do with a knife? I realize the 9/11 hijackers took the planes down with boxcutters, but the paradigm has changed... If someone stood up with a knife today, not only would they not get into the cockpit, the other passengers would beat them to death with the drinks trolley.
Re:Devil's Advocate Apparently... (Score:5, Insightful)
We *do not* trade our rights for the illusion of safety.
Homer Simpson: "I wouldn't have thought so either, but here we are."
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA is spending it like a waterfall on stuff that even DARPA says doesn't work
I actually laughed!
Yes, you know you're venturing into fantasy land when DARPA is calling you out for being too out there.
Re:Something has to take its place. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care. There are two things necessary to prevent another 9/11:
1) Strengthen the door to the cockpit.
2) Have the passengers beat the living shit out of hijackers rather than comply and wait for the authorities to negotiate.
Both changes were accomplished immediately right after 9/11.
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but despite being created to pay for the Civil War, and then being found unconstitutional, they tossed in the 16th amendment to keep the IRS going. Wonder how long it will be before a TSA amendment is passed. "For the good of the Homeland and Security unto the people under its care..."
You don't need amendments anymore. You'll never see another amendment to the Constitution again, because all you need are some judges that will rule your way. Changing the Constitution is hard, and it was supposed to be hard. It's much easier to get some judges to declare that up really means down. This is the danger of the whole "living Constitution" idea. If the Constitution is as pliable as putty, then it's really just a matter of whose hands the putty is in.
Re:and ... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious to know the % of those guns, etc. that were found using baggage X-Rays and metal detectors. You know, the two things we already had and used before the TSA existed. Remember, back when air travel wasn't a total clusterfuck pain in the ass.
Re:Friggen finally (Score:5, Insightful)
The Do Not Call list worked pretty well.
The fact that the Cuyahoga doesn't catch fire anymore is also another great indicator...
Re:Friggen finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately this is about par for all government when there are problems. It takes a very long time to effect change. Even if directors want to change something, when there are too many layers of management between the person who wants the change and the person who actually is supposed to implement it, and if those at the bottom actively do not want to change then it's really hard to get to the reasons why something fails. Each level of management, as they write their reports and reviews will sugar-coat what they need to, which means a cumulative sugar-coating by the time the reviews are distilled to the top.
It doesn't matter who's in power either, this is normal. It's also normal at very large companies, where too many layers allow whole divisions to run messed up for a long time before it manifests fatally, though at least companies have to make money. Government doesn't have that trouble.
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA catches on average about 5 guns PER DAY at airport screenings, and that's not including knives, explosives, and other prohibited objects.
So if they are 99% effective at finding guns, that means that 18 guns/year are slipping through their screening.
Besides, that statistic tells us nothing about whether or not TSA is protecting us.
How many of those gun owners were purposely trying to hide them and smuggle them on the plane versus someone like an off duty cop who left one in his briefcase, or someone who left his pistol in his backpack after a day on the shooting range? Just because someone takes a gun on the plane doesn't mean they are going to use it.
TSA may be catching 100% of the guns that law abiding citizens accidentally tried to carry onboard, but maybe they are catching 0% of the guns that are purposely smuggled onboard.
I accidentally carried a 10 pack of single-edged razor blades on several cross country flights when I forgot they were at the bottom my carryon backpack. If TSA found them, they would have added it to their statistics of how safe they are making you by keeping sharp objects off the plane even though there was never any safety concern. Of course, if I really wanted to take a razor blade onboard, I'd just slip a couple in next to my laptop battery and TSA would never know. (I know that for a fact because a friend who bought an old laptop on eBay found that the seller had done just that to secure a loose battery (except they were double edged blades, not single edged), and he carried it through security several times)
I don't get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
A bill to force the TSA to reduce its screening of active duty U.S. military members and their families was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives.
This is silly. Either you do screening, or you don't. Complete ineptness of the TSA aside for argument's sake, if you take the concept of operations for the TSA at its face they're not just looking for active and willing attackers, they're also looking for unwitting attackers. (That's why you screen Grandma in her wheelchair -- How does Grandma know nobody slipped an explosive onto her person or possessions somehow without her realizing it?)
If you're allowing military through, why not the 800,000 people with TS clearances? Or police? Or...? And how do you know that the person is a member of the military? And even if they are, it's not a foregone conclusion that they're automatically safe. (Nidal Malik Hasan? Hasan Akba?)
Screen everyone or screen no one. You're hard-pressed to make a rational risk argument if you're not doing that.
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
The terrorists do no need a successful attack, only an attempt.
I really think that there is someone orchestrating these attacks with a bizarre sense of humour. He gets some idiot to put a bomb in his shoe and now you need to take your shoes off to fly. So then he gets another idiot to put a bomb in his underwear and now full body scans. I can't wait to see what's next.
I think it was Mao who said that if your enemy is not by nature oppressive, you must force him to become so. Somebody has read the book.
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:4, Insightful)
The goal of the TSA isn't to catch terrorists. Only the most egregiously stupid terrorists would be caught by the TSA.
The goal of the TSA is to discourage terrorists from even trying. The TSA's effectiveness could be measured not by "how many terrorists are caught" (zero) but by "how many terrorists have succeed" (also zero).
The tiger-repelling-rock analogy is specious: you know for a fact that there aren't any tigers around here. You don't know how many terrorists there are. Zero? Ten? Ten thousand?
It's not zero. While the TSA hasn't caught any, the FBI has. How many of those terrorists would have attempted to use airplanes, if the TSA hadn't been there? I honestly can't tell you: most of the ones the FBI has caught were ass-clowns who were probably going to blow themselves up before they left their driveways. And we don't know how many terrorists gave up before they even started.
What's perplexing is why they haven't shifted to softer targets. The TSA, overzealous as it is, makes airplanes too hard to attack, but there are millions of other, better targets. A bomb on a commuter rail would cause a whole lot of mayhem with a far lower chance of getting caught. The TSA can't claim credit for that.
But I don't doubt that they deserve at least a little credit for the zero attacks on planes since 9/11. We know at least some wanted to try.
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:4, Insightful)
Please outline a plan to keep dangerous people/articles off of planes with near certain precision without invasive searches.
You don't need to worry about 'dangerous articles' if you don't have 'dangerous people', so the solution is to stop the 'dangerous people'. You don't do that by groping their genitals.
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Something has to take its place. (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA is a bureaucratic, money-sucking nightmare that entirely fails to live up to the promises of the politicians who created it. It is incompetently managed and its policies are inept, ineffective, capricious, opaque, invasive, disrespectful, and I would argue they are also fundamentally unconstitutional. All that said, though, the question remains: if the TSA were to vanish overnight, what would take its place? What SHOULD take its place? These are not easy questions to answer
That's a very easy question to answer. We go back to the same system we had before 9/11. When you went through a simple x-ray and metal detector, were allowed to take liquids through, and your family could accompany you to the gate.
Security was plenty sufficient back then. Case in point, the terrorists didn't manage to sneak guns or bombs in, they had box cutters. There are two fundamental changes that we've already made which plugs the 9/11 security hole: cockpit doors are locked and passengers no longer believe sitting down and waiting for the hijacking to be resolved through negotiations by the authorities is the best strategy. A few people armed with knives can't subdue a whole plane of passengers or take over if they can't get into the cockpit.
Re:How about just living with the fact... (Score:4, Insightful)
...that zooming about in a metal box miles above the ground is an inherently unsafe thing to do?
And yet, it is still by far the safest form of vehicle travel.
Moreover, you have to keep in mind the dangers of these security measures. For example, while the risk of death due to the virtual strip search machines may statistically be very low, it is ironically almost equal to the risk of death due to terrorist action bringing down the flight. And of course, as about a million people with two brain cells to rub together have figured out by now, if you have big queues waiting to go through security, you're actually creating a bigger target for anyone who does brings explosives to the airport than a plane itself, and obviously you're doing it before the security checks.
It is never going to be 100% safe... never ever ever.
That is true. It is, however, something like 99.99999% safe, depending on how many miles you count for an average journey (based on NTSB stats for average deaths per passenger-mile). How about we just live with the facts that flying isn't really dangerous compared to many other things we do all the time and that the terrorist threat is tiny compared to many other things that cause actual harm all the time, and we start spending our time and money fixing real problems instead?
I've noticed recently that some people like to quote US budget figures for the wars/homeland security to show how costly these things really are and put them in perspective. I'm waiting for the infographic that compares those figures with what it costs to save a life through better road safety, natural disaster management, medical research, public education, etc. You'd think one good cover on, say, Time magazine would make the point enough to get serious public debate going, but no-one in the media seems to be biting, for reasons I never quite understand.
Re:Friggen finally (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes a very long time to effect change.
Only if that change would increase the power of the people.
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
If he does make it to the airport, you catch it by profiling him for special extra screening. So you don't screen granny, but you do screen me (44 year old darker skinned guy, non US-citizen, with beard).
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:4, Insightful)
This took about 2 minutes on google.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/tsa-weve-stopped-1000-guns-so-far-year [opposingviews.com]
Ah, but how many of the guns caught by TSA were caught *only* because of TSA's procedures? Travelers had to go through metal detectors and their baggage through x-ray machines prior to TSA - did you think the prior security goons never caught any guns and knives being brought to the airport? I recall in pre-TSA days they'd always find my little pocket knife and check the length. (Back in the day you were allowed small blades)
Re:Oh look, the pendulum. It swings back. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Roman Empire lasted in some form until the fall of Constantinople. Also, "managably sized units" is not a good reason to split a nation--delegation and limited local governance is possible, and in fact is embodied in our systems of state and local government. Caesar noted that Management of the few was generally the same as management of the many, IIRC. You can have a million people in a city, they have some interests that will be different than those in the countryside, and you need a way to reconcile those interests into a common social contract when it is appropriate--failure to do that raises transaction costs and take value away from pretty much everyone.
In addition, small government *does not* protect against corruption. State governments are far more corrupt than the federal government.
Re:Oh look, the pendulum. It swings back. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, "managably sized units" is not a good reason to split a nation--delegation and limited local governance is possible, and in fact is embodied in our systems of state and local government.
What we have here is a conflict between theory and practice. In theory, it shouldn't matter how large the government is, because you can break it up into smaller regional units that govern themselves to a large extent, and let the top level government only handle affairs that concern the entire nation as a whole. In practice, it doesn't work. The national government draws more and more power to itself over time, increasing its size and duties, until every single issue has to be decided on the national level instead of allowing different regions to do things differently. Then lots of infighting results because people from different regions with different local cultures can never agree on all the issues and constantly fight over them at every election, continuously changing the law back in forth as different groups gain a slight majority and have the ability to alter the law, and do this instead of focusing on new issues. Meanwhile, as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", the greater concentration of power in the larger nation and its national government draws more corruption (since obviously, that corruption has higher potential profit; what good is it going to do for you to bribe some government official in Andorra, for instance?), and corruption increases exponentially.
In addition, small government *does not* protect against corruption. State governments are far more corrupt than the federal government.
Right, that's why corporate lobbyists spend so much time and money there trying to pass laws and get defense contracts. Try again. Smaller governments have less potential for corruption to be profitable for those who engage in it. As I said before, what good would it do you to bribe someone in Andorra's government? If you're some corporate lobbyist, not much, because there's not many people there and not much money flowing through it, compared to the USA.
The Roman Empire lasted in some form until the fall of Constantinople.
It's hard to say the Roman Empire "lasted" after the city of Rome was sacked. Yes, another smaller empire lasted for some time after the fall of Rome, but it wasn't the Roman Empire, it was an offshoot of it in a different region. That would be similar to the USA collapsing, and Alaska continuing to call itself "the USA" even though the rest of the nation either became smaller independent nations or were annexed by Mexico or Canada. Just like USA/Alaska, Constantinople wasn't even originally part of the Roman Empire, it was conquered later when they grew really large. AFAIC, you can't have something called "the Roman Empire" if it doesn't include the Italian peninsula and most especially the city of Rome. It reminds me of that little rebel Catholic Church organization that calls itself "the real Roman Catholic Church" even though no one else thinks they are.
Re:Oh look, the pendulum. It swings back. (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree with this in principle I can't support it. With 50 states we now have far too many voices for any to be heard above the roar, this country worked much better when there were 13 states and even then it took years to amend the constitution. With the 50 we now have it is impossible, so government has abandoned the amendment process and instituted bureaucratic decree. The existing states should band together in regional clusters and those clusters should be governed by the national government. I can't support that happening though because I would end up living in Jesusland.
Re:Oh look, the pendulum. It swings back. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "true red-blooded patriots" can think whatever they want, but all their willpower isn't going to overcome basic economics. If the economy collapses, no amount of patriotism or talk of "united we stand!" is going to make it better. Heck, we even have "red-blooded patriots" in many states doing things that are pretty close to outright rebellion against the nation and federal government: many states have passed laws forbidding themselves to follow the Real ID Act, Montana passed a law saying they can make machine guns if they want, stamped "Made in Montana", as long as they aren't sold out-of-state, plainly in direct opposition to BATFE policy, Arizona and the federal government are suing each other over immigration enforcement, etc. It seems like the "red-blooded" ones are the ones itching the most to cause division (not that I disagree with causing division; obviously with these and many other issues, Americans in many regions simply can't agree on anything, so I think it's better to simply break apart so that they don't have to agree).
Or we could return to the Federal model the US is actually based on instead of this rule from Washington thing we're doing now. Return the States to their rightful place and make the national government small as it should be. Then people can move to the State that best reflects their view of the world. That is how things were supposed to be in the first place, no? :)
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:5, Insightful)
Puh-lease. Al Qaeda doesn't have to do shit to us anymore. Just have someone whisper "mosque!!" and you get half the country peeing their pants.
If anyone wanted to cause megadeaths in the US, I can roll off the top of my head dozens of ways not involving airplanes or airports. Yet there hasn't been anything like that, nothing even hinting at that. You know why? Death is not what they're after. They're after terror, and they won. They won and those like you are letting them keep their victory by cowering like the little yellow bellied chickenshit you are.
You don't deserve this country.
Re:Friggen finally (Score:5, Insightful)
There is solution provided by the market because there is no need.
if there is suddenly a need, you'll probably see a dozen apps on the market the day the calls are legal.
daily updated phone lists not unlike adblock or peerblocker lists, downloaded to phones, blocking calls from those numbers. Hell, I'd pay a dollar or two for that.
Re:My Pet Rock Is Better (Score:4, Insightful)
Four guys did a good job because the passengers thought they just wanted money and safe passage to Cuba.
Passenger dynamics have changed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry, they stopped some people (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just my opinion but I've got an idea that others share it.
Re:Oh look, the pendulum. It swings back. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is with interstate commerce. I know libertarians love to blast that part of the Constitution, but it does serve an important purpose. For example, maybe Mississippi decides they want absolutely no environmental protections. Corporations will move their factories there, and start dumping their toxic wastes into the river. Only now the people in New Orleans have to suffer for their neighbors choices. If the states were each independent countries, that sort of thing would lead to serious border conflicts, sanctions, and maybe even war. Instead we have the federal government to unite us and pass nationwide standards. We're already in a race to the bottom with third world nations. The last thing we need is to start a race to the bottom between ourselves.
Or how about immigration? What if Tennessee decides that they want to let in all comers? Do we build a wall around the state, station guards at every border crossing?
Or the FCC? As nice as it might be to have different radio standards in Philly, Newark, NYC, and Stamford, the laws of physics don't allow it.
Entitlements might be better left to the state, but it would be a bureaucratic nightmare tracking people's moves across the nation (so that someone doesn't spend most of their life in a low tax state and retire in a high entitlement state).
There are some cases where we would be better off giving the states more control, but in many ways the old federal model simply can't work in the modern world.