8 ms·

The TSA Is Bad Because We Demand That It Be Bad

67 points by ourmandave 10y ago

Johnny555 10y ago
From the article: Another reason is that it’s much easier for the TSA to screen checked bags than carry-ons, and airlines keep discouraging people from checking bags. Why is it easier to screen checked bags? 90% of the time I fly, no one opens my checked bag (at least, there's no TSA card inside, and the TSA indicator on my lock doesn't show it was opened), so if they check it at all, they must use some kind of scanner -- can't they use that same scanner for carry-on bags? If screening for banned items makes it too hard to screen carry-on bags, then maybe they could trim down the list of banned items to a more manageable level.
- spott 10y ago
  Less rush? More space? Better equipment (enabled because of the previous two)? I'm not sure.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Probably very parallelizable, too - a bag that needs to be pulled off a line doesn't prevent a passenger from going on to their gate.
    - mattkrause 10y ago
      Definitely. If you watch the baggage screeners, they spent a lot of time inching the belt forwards and backwards to get a better look at something. While they're doing this, every other bag is just sitting there trapped in the queue. On the other hand, a lot of the checked baggage handling is very automated and can probably get a good view into most pieces without fiddling around.
- jackcarter 10y ago
  In checked bags, they're only looking for bombs. In carry-on bags, which you have access to during the flight, they also screen for weapons.
- massysett 10y ago
  The machine does not have to be in the place where the concourse meets the terminal, so maybe the machine can be bigger, maybe giving efficiency gains. No passengers are involved like they are at carry on screening, so also this might yield efficiencies, as you don't have to keep a bag and passenger near each other. As you suggest there are fewer banned items in checked bags, so less bag opening needed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ortusdux 10y ago
I am in no way an expert on the subject, but a bulk of the TSA/Flyer friction seems to come from bad customer service. The TSA basically only needs to work hard enough to not get fired. They have a 95% failure rate when it comes to their 'primary' job [1]. Recently, Delta airlines designed and built, in only 2 months, a new style of TSA screening points that moves 30% faster [2]. It would be interesting to give them some competition. Imagine if the department was split into the TSA and the TSB. Give them equal funding and presence in the airport. Flyers pay a screening fee and pick A or B, and then are screened by that agency. I bet they would shape up overnight. [1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-tsa-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-tsa-a... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/11/481694459/new-airport-security-lanes-in-atlanta-are-30-more-efficient-tsa-chief-says http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/11/481694459/...
- dalke 10y ago
  "Bad service" is the surface problem. Quoting from the article: > The House of Representatives voted to cut TSA funding in 2011. Sequestration cut TSA funding in 2013. > In 2014, Congress passed a TSA fare increase, and used the overwhelming majority of that not to fund the TSA, but to pay down the national debt. When the TSA fare went up in 2014 (as did the prices of tickets it was attached to), Congressional funding cuts to the TSA meant the TSA cut 3,500 screener positions. And in 2015, the House voted to increase TSA funding, but cut TSA employee pay. Pay poorly, and you'll get poor service. As for your proposal, who will pay for the extra overhead of two teams? Will small airports need twice the staff?
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    By 2011, there had already been a lot of pushback against the TSA, so I'm sure part of the rationale for the cuts was to force TSA to stop growing out of control like it had been. A leaner budget could force the TSA to become leaner, which in a rational world would mean it would have to become more efficient to do its job. Of course this is government, so the TSA just did its job less. The flip side, redirecting increases in TSA fares away from the TSA and towards the general budget, is also typical government behavior: can't raise taxes, so raise "fees" instead and use the proceeds like a tax.
golergka 10y ago
They should've also noticed that you always have to get to Ben Gurion at least 3 hours before the flight because of security. I'm not complaining, but it's probably not what americans would want in a future TSA.
dottedmag 10y ago
What's the underlying difference which causes a typical European security check to be swift (I don't remember spending more than 5 minutes on a security control for ages) and the TSA one to be awfully long?
- dasil003 10y ago
  In China they fool you into thinking it's going to go quick by being low-tech with relatively spartan cordoning, and just a nondescript agent at a metal table. Then suddenly and unceremoniously they dump all your shit out everywhere and wave you through while moving onto the next person, leaving you to spend 10 minutes repacking everything. (Maybe this is only for foreigners though).
- robk 10y ago
  Bad anecdotal. Europe is even worse in ways - I'd kill for Precheck at LHR or CDG
rayiner 10y ago
> Ultimately, the TSA’s airport screening exists as the second-to-last line of defense for a threat that is astoundingly rare. It didn't used to be that rare before the FAA required screening measures to be implemented: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-hijacking-history.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-h... ("By the mid-1970s, at least 150 planes had been 'skyjacked' in the United States alone.") The first U.S. hijacking was in 1961,[1] so we're talking roughly 10 per year in the U.S. before modern aviation security. It would be fair to point out that most of the decrease happened due to pre-TSA screening measures. But it would also be fair to point out that it's hard to separate how much of the delays post-TSA are due to the TSA itself and how much are due to the massive increase in US passengers and concomitant overloading of airport capacity. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/20/when-hijackers-ruled-the-american-skies.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/20/when-hijack...
TheLarch 10y ago
The article doesn't mention that Israeli screeners are highly trained. There's a term of art in law enforcement, "hinky", which denotes the red flag that LEO's develop with experience. To fly in Israel, one stops in a bombproof room and is merely questioned by professionals, who will pull you aside if you are hinky. The underwear bomber's father was worried that he was violent and crazy. He CONTACTED THE US STATE DEPT about his son, out of concern. His son the bomber traveled internationally to the US, without any suitcases. He was as hinky as you could hope to find. Our relatively untrained TSA is nearly useless; at best it is security theater. I would be heavily against the underwear bomber sneaking by professionals successfully. Also, I don't see how airplanes are not such a rich target any more. Killing a lot of people without access to the cockpit is challenging (they are sealed in the US now). A McDonald's employee could fare much better with a slow poison I suppose. Credit where due: a great deal of this post is gleaned from Bruce Schneier writings.
- fiiiauuush 10y ago
  A side effect of Israeli security is that there are no social barriers to profiling. In the US, such profiling is illegal.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Thanks for bringing up these points. I think these are common misconceptions among educated people. Mentioning them shows that you exercise a good amount of critical thinking. 1. Israeli security. While passengers wait in security lines, Israeli security officers ask questions to each individual about their journey. However, these checks only occur at Israeli airports. Board El Al from Amsterdam, and you'll find the same checks as other airlines to non-Israeli destinations. Another point: the "hinky" factor. Ethnic and religious profiling is practiced regularly and overtly in Israel [1]; U.S. law protects travelers from this method of profiling. I do agree that we should increase the amount of specialist investigators available to perform interviews while passengers are in line. I don't agree that Israel is a relevant model for the U.S., which is full of small airports and is less politically centralized. I compare this to the one major airport in Israel (yes there are 5 int'l airports but Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv gets the lion's share of flights). 2. TSA's uselessness. TSA is an effective deterrent. It increases the risk of getting caught to a nonzero factor. The amount of airplane hijackings has reduced to zero in the United States since the creation of the TSA. Hijackings in other countries' airspace still occurs. Is TSA doing a horrible job? Objectively yes. Is it useless? No. 3. Airplanes as enticing targets. Airplane crashes target middle and upper class people who politicians care about. The Malaysian Airlines crashes dominated airwaves for weeks. Airplane crashes are sensational and can spur politicians into a course of action (overreaction) favorable to terrorists' agendas. A McDonald's poisoning is difficult to attribute to malice. ISIL might have claimed responsibility for the Chipotle e. coli outbreak, but would that have been credible? 4. Schneier. Mr. Schneier is a brilliant cryptographer who does not have credible expertise outside that realm. His blog is popular and he is vocal about computer security. However, several outstanding security professionals (Thomas Ptacek, on this site) have noted that many of his statements and predictions regarding computer security are plain wrong, and belie a lack of understanding of software vulnerability analysis. That said, his opinion of the TSA and Israeli security is as valid as any other layperson social commentator; he just doesn't have any expertise in the domain. [1] http://www.haaretz.com/in-israel-racial-profiling-doesn-t-warrant-debate-or-apologies-1.261075 http://www.haaretz.com/in-israel-racial-profiling-doesn-t-wa...
unabst 10y ago
The TSA does not block terrorists. It blocks idiots. Some terrorists are idiots, but it has also blocked idiots that were not terrorists. Of course, not all terrorists are idiots, and not all threats are terrorists. Which begs the question, who asked for this?
X86BSD 10y ago
The most glaring idiotic point I never see raised about the TSA, other than being an abject failure, is that whatever idiot thought up the TSA didn't even attempt to think like a terrorist. Look since it's inception to stop terrorists getting on board planes with water bottles and nail clippers, and box cutters... if I am a terrorist.. you just made my job 1000 times easier. I don't even need to get on a plane. You just corralled dozens of people into a single slow moving line. Why wouldn't I just strap symtex to my self and ball bearings, go through the security line and as soon as I am the next person to go through the scanners blow myself up. Taking out the TSA agents, the scanners, the security personnel at the checkpoint, the 20 or thirty people standing behind me and those in front putting their shoes on. I mean you just made my job a cake walk. No one who passed legislation creating the worthless TSA even tried to think about how much easier this would make terrorism. Seriously, didn't. even. try. to. think.
- Retra 10y ago
  The TSA was created to stop people from flying planes into buildings. Whatever damage you think you'd do with a bomb at an airport is not much next to what you could do with a plane in the sky. Additionally, you've just blown up an airport without ever receiving full access to the country. It's easy to attack a country's borders, but that's not where the heart is.
  - X86BSD 10y ago
    I was talking about someone inside the US with a departure ticket outside the US. It is also easy to attack it inside. Timothy McVey, Oklahoma city. The TSA does not magically improve if you are leaving the country.
    - Retra 10y ago
      I have no love for the TSA, but it seems ridiculous to believe that threats outside the US are somehow not relevant just because threats inside the US exist.
- linkregister 10y ago
newman314 10y ago
Last two times I've flown, the TSA Pre line was longer than the regular Premier line. Also, it's frustrating to see not more people calling out Pre for what it is: a pay-to-play scheme which I'm very much opposed to. Not to mention the outstanding record of the government keeping such data secure to date.
ibejoeb 10y ago
>if Congress funded the TSA enough >we created the TSA, tasked it with a massive task, and hobbled it with ..., weak funding, ... This is a terrible congress, but I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. It's not true. This is simply mismanagement, blame shifting, and parroting of spin. TSA has an increased budget but has voluntarily eliminated screeners. They recognize it and call it a win. The budget is north of $7.3 B and has increased year over year. Despite this, TSA has eliminated thousands of positions. These numbers are all publicly available and verifiable[1][2][3]. In FY 2016, TSA budget increased almost $49 million to a totally of $7.3 billion. Despite this increase, TSA eliminated 2,860 positions from it workforce. Likewise, the 2017 budget (which is not finalized, of course) has increased upwards of $70 million. They simply can't spend the money fast enough. TSA sees no problem with this. In fact, they think they're doing a great job. On the elimination of 1,666 screeners, they laud themselves, "[Risk-based security] methods have proven more efficient in moving people through the checkpoint than regular screening lanes and require fewer resources than a traditional screening lane. This reduction reflects TSA’s goal to continue transitioning to a smaller, more skilled, professional workforce..." [2-p.62] 1. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY15BIB.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY15BIB... 2. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY_2016_DHS_Budget_in_Brief.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY_2016... 3. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY2017BIB.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY2017B...
coldtea 10y ago
>which is based on profiling that’s a combination of behavioral and racial (the latter of which is rightfully officially prohibited by the TSA, though allegations of racial profiling against it continue) TSA being crap aside, I don't see what's wrong with racial profiling. If a predominant number of actual culprits will be of a certain ethnicity or broader culture (e.g. because the organizations they belong too predominantly operate in certain countries or with certain religious groups), you should definitely that to the things you check for as a statistically significant correlation. That's a totally different thing from being racist -- which is assuming a certain demographic are inferior humans.
- bandushrew 10y ago
  Im against it because its insanely stupid, not because its racist. Lets take Islamic Terrorists as an example, they have a very wide pool of people to choose from, many of whom do not fit any stereotype you could come up with. As soon as its known that security targets specific profiles, it becomes trivial to bypass security.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Since it's like one in a million people that are terrorists you're basically harassing entire groups of people on the premise that you'll luck out and find the one among them that's determined to cause harm. This is so staggeringly unlikely to happen. The TSA is more likely to find a winning Powerball ticket in someone's luggage.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Lets take Islamic Terrorists as an example, they have a very wide pool of people to choose from, many of whom do not fit any stereotype you could come up with. As soon as its known that security targets specific profiles, it becomes trivial to bypass security. If the "specific profile" is their ethnicity, then it doesn't become "trivial" at all. It puts them through a huge new cost -- having to recruit and convince to send on missions more people of other nationalities. And while those do exist, they are far rarer than fundamentalist native Syrians or Iraqis for example.
bsder 10y ago
The TSA is bad because its visible arms are all cost (government money, passenger time, etc.) and no benefit. The TSA airport checkers are the worst. If you simply removed the checkers and let the airlines go back to handling security, things would be just fine. Hijacking and other forms of on plane malfeasance are a solved problem not because of TSA but because passengers won't sit still for it anymore. Of course, reinforced cockpit doors now make hijacking by insiders much easier because the passengers can't fight back through it. Oops. The problem is that the most effective security measures don't come with multi-billion dollar project budgets. Matching luggage to passengers to prevent non-suicide attacks. Cell phone waiting lots so someone circling an airport is now suspicious behavior. All of these things are relatively cheap but very effective--thus nobody cares because there is no money in it.
glasz 10y ago
i'm a bit sad because whenever i talk to someone who went in and out the US they claim to not have had issues with the tsa. it may well be a clustered problem that mostly doesnt appear but since people are sheep i guess they just go with the hassle, don't care and then say "nah, no problems.". my proposal: don't change a damn thing about the tsa. but introduce a tsa-free line with simple metal detectors. no molesting, no cancer-inducing machinery. sheep could be free again.
nitwit005 10y ago
Where "we" is a group of politicians who want to be re-elected. If longer lines don't hurt them politically, then they aren't going to worry too much about fixing things to make it faster. There is a premise here that the wait is an issue, but I'm not so sure a long and bothersome security line is a bad thing from the perspective of our political leaders. I suspect (with complete seriousness) that if airport security wasn't a bother, people wouldn't feel safe.

67 points by ourmandave 10y ago

From the article: Another reason is that it’s much easier for the TSA to screen checked bags than carry-ons, and airlines keep discouraging people from checking bags. Why is it easier to screen checked bags? 90% of the time I fly, no one opens my checked bag (at least, there's no TSA card inside, and the TSA indicator on my lock doesn't show it was opened), so if they check it at all, they must use some kind of scanner -- can't they use that same scanner for carry-on bags? If screening for banned items makes it too hard to screen carry-on bags, then maybe they could trim down the list of banned items to a more manageable level.

spott 10y ago
Less rush? More space? Better equipment (enabled because of the previous two)? I'm not sure.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Probably very parallelizable, too - a bag that needs to be pulled off a line doesn't prevent a passenger from going on to their gate.
  - mattkrause 10y ago
    Definitely. If you watch the baggage screeners, they spent a lot of time inching the belt forwards and backwards to get a better look at something. While they're doing this, every other bag is just sitting there trapped in the queue. On the other hand, a lot of the checked baggage handling is very automated and can probably get a good view into most pieces without fiddling around.
jackcarter 10y ago
In checked bags, they're only looking for bombs. In carry-on bags, which you have access to during the flight, they also screen for weapons.
massysett 10y ago
The machine does not have to be in the place where the concourse meets the terminal, so maybe the machine can be bigger, maybe giving efficiency gains. No passengers are involved like they are at carry on screening, so also this might yield efficiencies, as you don't have to keep a bag and passenger near each other. As you suggest there are fewer banned items in checked bags, so less bag opening needed.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ortusdux 10y ago

I am in no way an expert on the subject, but a bulk of the TSA/Flyer friction seems to come from bad customer service. The TSA basically only needs to work hard enough to not get fired. They have a 95% failure rate when it comes to their 'primary' job [1]. Recently, Delta airlines designed and built, in only 2 months, a new style of TSA screening points that moves 30% faster [2]. It would be interesting to give them some competition. Imagine if the department was split into the TSA and the TSB. Give them equal funding and presence in the airport. Flyers pay a screening fee and pick A or B, and then are screened by that agency. I bet they would shape up overnight. [1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-tsa-airport-security-charade-20150608-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-tsa-a... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/11/481694459/new-airport-security-lanes-in-atlanta-are-30-more-efficient-tsa-chief-says http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/11/481694459/...

dalke 10y ago
"Bad service" is the surface problem. Quoting from the article: > The House of Representatives voted to cut TSA funding in 2011. Sequestration cut TSA funding in 2013. > In 2014, Congress passed a TSA fare increase, and used the overwhelming majority of that not to fund the TSA, but to pay down the national debt. When the TSA fare went up in 2014 (as did the prices of tickets it was attached to), Congressional funding cuts to the TSA meant the TSA cut 3,500 screener positions. And in 2015, the House voted to increase TSA funding, but cut TSA employee pay. Pay poorly, and you'll get poor service. As for your proposal, who will pay for the extra overhead of two teams? Will small airports need twice the staff?
- DougWebb 10y ago
  By 2011, there had already been a lot of pushback against the TSA, so I'm sure part of the rationale for the cuts was to force TSA to stop growing out of control like it had been. A leaner budget could force the TSA to become leaner, which in a rational world would mean it would have to become more efficient to do its job. Of course this is government, so the TSA just did its job less. The flip side, redirecting increases in TSA fares away from the TSA and towards the general budget, is also typical government behavior: can't raise taxes, so raise "fees" instead and use the proceeds like a tax.

golergka 10y ago

They should've also noticed that you always have to get to Ben Gurion at least 3 hours before the flight because of security. I'm not complaining, but it's probably not what americans would want in a future TSA.

dottedmag 10y ago

What's the underlying difference which causes a typical European security check to be swift (I don't remember spending more than 5 minutes on a security control for ages) and the TSA one to be awfully long?

dasil003 10y ago
In China they fool you into thinking it's going to go quick by being low-tech with relatively spartan cordoning, and just a nondescript agent at a metal table. Then suddenly and unceremoniously they dump all your shit out everywhere and wave you through while moving onto the next person, leaving you to spend 10 minutes repacking everything. (Maybe this is only for foreigners though).
robk 10y ago
Bad anecdotal. Europe is even worse in ways - I'd kill for Precheck at LHR or CDG

rayiner 10y ago

> Ultimately, the TSA’s airport screening exists as the second-to-last line of defense for a threat that is astoundingly rare. It didn't used to be that rare before the FAA required screening measures to be implemented: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-hijacking-history.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/middleeast/airline-h... ("By the mid-1970s, at least 150 planes had been 'skyjacked' in the United States alone.") The first U.S. hijacking was in 1961,[1] so we're talking roughly 10 per year in the U.S. before modern aviation security. It would be fair to point out that most of the decrease happened due to pre-TSA screening measures. But it would also be fair to point out that it's hard to separate how much of the delays post-TSA are due to the TSA itself and how much are due to the massive increase in US passengers and concomitant overloading of airport capacity. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/20/when-hijackers-ruled-the-american-skies.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/20/when-hijack...

TheLarch 10y ago

The article doesn't mention that Israeli screeners are highly trained. There's a term of art in law enforcement, "hinky", which denotes the red flag that LEO's develop with experience. To fly in Israel, one stops in a bombproof room and is merely questioned by professionals, who will pull you aside if you are hinky. The underwear bomber's father was worried that he was violent and crazy. He CONTACTED THE US STATE DEPT about his son, out of concern. His son the bomber traveled internationally to the US, without any suitcases. He was as hinky as you could hope to find. Our relatively untrained TSA is nearly useless; at best it is security theater. I would be heavily against the underwear bomber sneaking by professionals successfully. Also, I don't see how airplanes are not such a rich target any more. Killing a lot of people without access to the cockpit is challenging (they are sealed in the US now). A McDonald's employee could fare much better with a slow poison I suppose. Credit where due: a great deal of this post is gleaned from Bruce Schneier writings.

fiiiauuush 10y ago
A side effect of Israeli security is that there are no social barriers to profiling. In the US, such profiling is illegal.
linkregister 10y ago
Thanks for bringing up these points. I think these are common misconceptions among educated people. Mentioning them shows that you exercise a good amount of critical thinking. 1. Israeli security. While passengers wait in security lines, Israeli security officers ask questions to each individual about their journey. However, these checks only occur at Israeli airports. Board El Al from Amsterdam, and you'll find the same checks as other airlines to non-Israeli destinations. Another point: the "hinky" factor. Ethnic and religious profiling is practiced regularly and overtly in Israel [1]; U.S. law protects travelers from this method of profiling. I do agree that we should increase the amount of specialist investigators available to perform interviews while passengers are in line. I don't agree that Israel is a relevant model for the U.S., which is full of small airports and is less politically centralized. I compare this to the one major airport in Israel (yes there are 5 int'l airports but Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv gets the lion's share of flights). 2. TSA's uselessness. TSA is an effective deterrent. It increases the risk of getting caught to a nonzero factor. The amount of airplane hijackings has reduced to zero in the United States since the creation of the TSA. Hijackings in other countries' airspace still occurs. Is TSA doing a horrible job? Objectively yes. Is it useless? No. 3. Airplanes as enticing targets. Airplane crashes target middle and upper class people who politicians care about. The Malaysian Airlines crashes dominated airwaves for weeks. Airplane crashes are sensational and can spur politicians into a course of action (overreaction) favorable to terrorists' agendas. A McDonald's poisoning is difficult to attribute to malice. ISIL might have claimed responsibility for the Chipotle e. coli outbreak, but would that have been credible? 4. Schneier. Mr. Schneier is a brilliant cryptographer who does not have credible expertise outside that realm. His blog is popular and he is vocal about computer security. However, several outstanding security professionals (Thomas Ptacek, on this site) have noted that many of his statements and predictions regarding computer security are plain wrong, and belie a lack of understanding of software vulnerability analysis. That said, his opinion of the TSA and Israeli security is as valid as any other layperson social commentator; he just doesn't have any expertise in the domain. [1] http://www.haaretz.com/in-israel-racial-profiling-doesn-t-warrant-debate-or-apologies-1.261075 http://www.haaretz.com/in-israel-racial-profiling-doesn-t-wa...

unabst 10y ago

The TSA does not block terrorists. It blocks idiots. Some terrorists are idiots, but it has also blocked idiots that were not terrorists. Of course, not all terrorists are idiots, and not all threats are terrorists. Which begs the question, who asked for this?

X86BSD 10y ago

The most glaring idiotic point I never see raised about the TSA, other than being an abject failure, is that whatever idiot thought up the TSA didn't even attempt to think like a terrorist. Look since it's inception to stop terrorists getting on board planes with water bottles and nail clippers, and box cutters... if I am a terrorist.. you just made my job 1000 times easier. I don't even need to get on a plane. You just corralled dozens of people into a single slow moving line. Why wouldn't I just strap symtex to my self and ball bearings, go through the security line and as soon as I am the next person to go through the scanners blow myself up. Taking out the TSA agents, the scanners, the security personnel at the checkpoint, the 20 or thirty people standing behind me and those in front putting their shoes on. I mean you just made my job a cake walk. No one who passed legislation creating the worthless TSA even tried to think about how much easier this would make terrorism. Seriously, didn't. even. try. to. think.

Retra 10y ago
The TSA was created to stop people from flying planes into buildings. Whatever damage you think you'd do with a bomb at an airport is not much next to what you could do with a plane in the sky. Additionally, you've just blown up an airport without ever receiving full access to the country. It's easy to attack a country's borders, but that's not where the heart is.
- X86BSD 10y ago
  I was talking about someone inside the US with a departure ticket outside the US. It is also easy to attack it inside. Timothy McVey, Oklahoma city. The TSA does not magically improve if you are leaving the country.
  - Retra 10y ago
    I have no love for the TSA, but it seems ridiculous to believe that threats outside the US are somehow not relevant just because threats inside the US exist.
linkregister 10y ago

newman314 10y ago

Last two times I've flown, the TSA Pre line was longer than the regular Premier line. Also, it's frustrating to see not more people calling out Pre for what it is: a pay-to-play scheme which I'm very much opposed to. Not to mention the outstanding record of the government keeping such data secure to date.

ibejoeb 10y ago

>if Congress funded the TSA enough >we created the TSA, tasked it with a massive task, and hobbled it with ..., weak funding, ... This is a terrible congress, but I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. It's not true. This is simply mismanagement, blame shifting, and parroting of spin. TSA has an increased budget but has voluntarily eliminated screeners. They recognize it and call it a win. The budget is north of $7.3 B and has increased year over year. Despite this, TSA has eliminated thousands of positions. These numbers are all publicly available and verifiable[1][2][3]. In FY 2016, TSA budget increased almost $49 million to a totally of $7.3 billion. Despite this increase, TSA eliminated 2,860 positions from it workforce. Likewise, the 2017 budget (which is not finalized, of course) has increased upwards of $70 million. They simply can't spend the money fast enough. TSA sees no problem with this. In fact, they think they're doing a great job. On the elimination of 1,666 screeners, they laud themselves, "[Risk-based security] methods have proven more efficient in moving people through the checkpoint than regular screening lanes and require fewer resources than a traditional screening lane. This reduction reflects TSA’s goal to continue transitioning to a smaller, more skilled, professional workforce..." [2-p.62] 1. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY15BIB.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY15BIB... 2. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY_2016_DHS_Budget_in_Brief.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY_2016... 3. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY2017BIB.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY2017B...

coldtea 10y ago

>which is based on profiling that’s a combination of behavioral and racial (the latter of which is rightfully officially prohibited by the TSA, though allegations of racial profiling against it continue) TSA being crap aside, I don't see what's wrong with racial profiling. If a predominant number of actual culprits will be of a certain ethnicity or broader culture (e.g. because the organizations they belong too predominantly operate in certain countries or with certain religious groups), you should definitely that to the things you check for as a statistically significant correlation. That's a totally different thing from being racist -- which is assuming a certain demographic are inferior humans.

bandushrew 10y ago
Im against it because its insanely stupid, not because its racist. Lets take Islamic Terrorists as an example, they have a very wide pool of people to choose from, many of whom do not fit any stereotype you could come up with. As soon as its known that security targets specific profiles, it becomes trivial to bypass security.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Since it's like one in a million people that are terrorists you're basically harassing entire groups of people on the premise that you'll luck out and find the one among them that's determined to cause harm. This is so staggeringly unlikely to happen. The TSA is more likely to find a winning Powerball ticket in someone's luggage.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Lets take Islamic Terrorists as an example, they have a very wide pool of people to choose from, many of whom do not fit any stereotype you could come up with. As soon as its known that security targets specific profiles, it becomes trivial to bypass security. If the "specific profile" is their ethnicity, then it doesn't become "trivial" at all. It puts them through a huge new cost -- having to recruit and convince to send on missions more people of other nationalities. And while those do exist, they are far rarer than fundamentalist native Syrians or Iraqis for example.

bsder 10y ago

The TSA is bad because its visible arms are all cost (government money, passenger time, etc.) and no benefit. The TSA airport checkers are the worst. If you simply removed the checkers and let the airlines go back to handling security, things would be just fine. Hijacking and other forms of on plane malfeasance are a solved problem not because of TSA but because passengers won't sit still for it anymore. Of course, reinforced cockpit doors now make hijacking by insiders much easier because the passengers can't fight back through it. Oops. The problem is that the most effective security measures don't come with multi-billion dollar project budgets. Matching luggage to passengers to prevent non-suicide attacks. Cell phone waiting lots so someone circling an airport is now suspicious behavior. All of these things are relatively cheap but very effective--thus nobody cares because there is no money in it.

glasz 10y ago

i'm a bit sad because whenever i talk to someone who went in and out the US they claim to not have had issues with the tsa. it may well be a clustered problem that mostly doesnt appear but since people are sheep i guess they just go with the hassle, don't care and then say "nah, no problems.". my proposal: don't change a damn thing about the tsa. but introduce a tsa-free line with simple metal detectors. no molesting, no cancer-inducing machinery. sheep could be free again.

nitwit005 10y ago

Where "we" is a group of politicians who want to be re-elected. If longer lines don't hurt them politically, then they aren't going to worry too much about fixing things to make it faster. There is a premise here that the wait is an issue, but I'm not so sure a long and bothersome security line is a bad thing from the perspective of our political leaders. I suspect (with complete seriousness) that if airport security wasn't a bother, people wouldn't feel safe.