5 ms·

We have always been coerced into procedures that violate our privacy when we fly. If we were not, terrorists would regularly board aircraft with guns and ammo.

by aneth 16y ago

We have always been coerced into procedures that violate our privacy when we fly. If we were not, terrorists would regularly board aircraft with guns and ammo. From a shitload of personal travel (I fly twice a month) I have found 95% of the TSA to be good humored and responsible. The situation today is fa better than it was when run by private companies.

danilocampos 16y ago
> We have always been coerced into procedures that violate our privacy when we fly. Detecting metallic objects isn't really a violation of privacy. Neither is seeing an X-ray image of mundane baggage. This is your body, we're talking about. And I'm not aware of any previous policy that allowed TSA to cop a feel with such gratuitous abandon. > If we were not, terrorists would regularly board aircraft with guns and ammo. When "terrorists" and other boogeymen reach the airport with all their destructive goodies, our security apparatus has already failed.
- aneth 16y ago
  > Detecting metallic objects isn't really a violation of privacy. Neither is seeing an X-ray image of mundane baggage. This is your body, we're talking about. And I'm not aware of any previous policy that allowed TSA to cop a feel with such gratuitous abandon. Personally, I'd rather have someone see a black and white outline of my naked body than look through my luggage - the former has no meaning or value, the second is actually private. What you consider "mundane," I consider personal. > When "terrorists" and other boogeymen reach the airport with all their destructive goodies, our security apparatus has already failed. So - no wiretaps, no racial profiling, no country profiling, no searches, no detainment, no internet monitoring - I suppose we use love and psychic powers?
barrkel 16y ago
The TSA agents who are unhappy about groping strangers are going to be the ones who find a new job. I fully expect that if this policy continues, the people most attracted to TSA positions will be those who derive pleasure from subjecting strangers to a sexualized grope.
dalke 16y ago
"far better than it was" ... citation needed? I thought the GAO has reported several times that it's as easy to get "bomb parts" and other weapons through TSA security as it was in the pre-TSA days. I've been trying to find the report. The closest I got to was one on "TSA's Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening" which said there are methodological problems in the TSA's report on the cost of private security over TSA-base ones. It pointed out that a handful of airports (including SFO) use private security. So, how has SFO compared to LAX?
- aneth 16y ago
  I don't fly to LA. By far better I mean the procedures are faster, better explained, and the operation is more professional. My point is not to advocate government run security, but to point out that all this reactionary criticism of TSA is unjustified and it's crowdthink going on right now.
  - dalke 16y ago
    But is the security any better? Back in the 1990s the procedures were faster (because there was less checking) and better explained (because there were fewer things to explain). Does 3-1-1 and taking off of shoes make us more secure? If not, then the professionalism is unwarranted. And every study report I've seen says that outside of a few things (secure doors, which the airlines fought against in the 1990s; and halting the practice of responding to hijacker demands), the overall security is not made better by this ever-increasing level of passenger scrutiny.
    - aneth 16y ago
      By this logic, we could drop all security checks. I'm sure no one would ever board a plane strapped with explosives...
      - dalke 16y ago
        That's not what I said and your logic makes no sense. A few months ago we had security X. We now have security Y, which is more expensive and more intrusive. Is that change justifiable? The TSA has not really justified this, which is easy to see from the Government Accountability Office reports. A decade ago we had security A. We now have security Y (still). The same argument holds - are flights more secure, and which security factors are beneficial and which are not? Quite clearly the secure doors and rejection of the policy to agree to hijacker demands are effective against a broad range of attacks meant to use airplanes as a directed weapon. This is a security change I would not drop. But since the GAO has shown that it's as easy to smuggle in "bomb parts" into an airport during periods A and Y, there is quite clearly limited improvement in the effectiveness of preventing people from blowing up planes. Note that this is a different security threat than in the previous paragraph. How here does this equal to a logical conclusion that we should drop all security checks? That only makes sense if you think that none of the security screenings work, which I quite clearly did not say. Oh, and in your original post you said you "found 95% of the TSA to be good humored and responsible." If you deal with 3 TSA people each trip then every 5 trips you'll be dealing with a non-good humored or non-responsible TSA member. If in a 1990s-era airport you found that only 90% of the staff was the same, but you only needed to deal with a single magnetometer staff, then you would have problems only every 7 trips. More professional staff doesn't necessarily mean a better experience.

by aneth 16y ago

danilocampos 16y ago

> We have always been coerced into procedures that violate our privacy when we fly. Detecting metallic objects isn't really a violation of privacy. Neither is seeing an X-ray image of mundane baggage. This is your body, we're talking about. And I'm not aware of any previous policy that allowed TSA to cop a feel with such gratuitous abandon. > If we were not, terrorists would regularly board aircraft with guns and ammo. When "terrorists" and other boogeymen reach the airport with all their destructive goodies, our security apparatus has already failed.

aneth 16y ago
> Detecting metallic objects isn't really a violation of privacy. Neither is seeing an X-ray image of mundane baggage. This is your body, we're talking about. And I'm not aware of any previous policy that allowed TSA to cop a feel with such gratuitous abandon. Personally, I'd rather have someone see a black and white outline of my naked body than look through my luggage - the former has no meaning or value, the second is actually private. What you consider "mundane," I consider personal. > When "terrorists" and other boogeymen reach the airport with all their destructive goodies, our security apparatus has already failed. So - no wiretaps, no racial profiling, no country profiling, no searches, no detainment, no internet monitoring - I suppose we use love and psychic powers?

barrkel 16y ago

The TSA agents who are unhappy about groping strangers are going to be the ones who find a new job. I fully expect that if this policy continues, the people most attracted to TSA positions will be those who derive pleasure from subjecting strangers to a sexualized grope.

dalke 16y ago

"far better than it was" ... citation needed? I thought the GAO has reported several times that it's as easy to get "bomb parts" and other weapons through TSA security as it was in the pre-TSA days. I've been trying to find the report. The closest I got to was one on "TSA's Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening" which said there are methodological problems in the TSA's report on the cost of private security over TSA-base ones. It pointed out that a handful of airports (including SFO) use private security. So, how has SFO compared to LAX?

aneth 16y ago
I don't fly to LA. By far better I mean the procedures are faster, better explained, and the operation is more professional. My point is not to advocate government run security, but to point out that all this reactionary criticism of TSA is unjustified and it's crowdthink going on right now.
- dalke 16y ago
  But is the security any better? Back in the 1990s the procedures were faster (because there was less checking) and better explained (because there were fewer things to explain). Does 3-1-1 and taking off of shoes make us more secure? If not, then the professionalism is unwarranted. And every study report I've seen says that outside of a few things (secure doors, which the airlines fought against in the 1990s; and halting the practice of responding to hijacker demands), the overall security is not made better by this ever-increasing level of passenger scrutiny.
  - aneth 16y ago
    By this logic, we could drop all security checks. I'm sure no one would ever board a plane strapped with explosives...
    - dalke 16y ago
      That's not what I said and your logic makes no sense. A few months ago we had security X. We now have security Y, which is more expensive and more intrusive. Is that change justifiable? The TSA has not really justified this, which is easy to see from the Government Accountability Office reports. A decade ago we had security A. We now have security Y (still). The same argument holds - are flights more secure, and which security factors are beneficial and which are not? Quite clearly the secure doors and rejection of the policy to agree to hijacker demands are effective against a broad range of attacks meant to use airplanes as a directed weapon. This is a security change I would not drop. But since the GAO has shown that it's as easy to smuggle in "bomb parts" into an airport during periods A and Y, there is quite clearly limited improvement in the effectiveness of preventing people from blowing up planes. Note that this is a different security threat than in the previous paragraph. How here does this equal to a logical conclusion that we should drop all security checks? That only makes sense if you think that none of the security screenings work, which I quite clearly did not say. Oh, and in your original post you said you "found 95% of the TSA to be good humored and responsible." If you deal with 3 TSA people each trip then every 5 trips you'll be dealing with a non-good humored or non-responsible TSA member. If in a 1990s-era airport you found that only 90% of the staff was the same, but you only needed to deal with a single magnetometer staff, then you would have problems only every 7 trips. More professional staff doesn't necessarily mean a better experience.