4 ms·

I was reading along, nodding my head, then I got to this: Hard to argue with most of that, although abolishing the TSA isn't a good idea. Airport security shou

I was reading along, nodding my head, then I got to this: Hard to argue with most of that, although abolishing the TSA isn't a good idea. Airport security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, but someone is going to have to be in charge of it. Putting the airlines in charge of it doesn't make sense; their incentives are going to be passenger service rather than security. What? How many passengers can you service if the airport is unsafe? Is the author unaware of the hundreds of different types of businesses that operate in hostile environments yet manage to keep their customers safe as part of their service? Has he never walked into a fast-food restaurant on a weekend night and seen the security guards? Hell, that's McDonalds, for chirstsakes, they sell you 2-dollar burgers. Don't you think the airlines would do a bit better? The TSA is the one department we should abolish. They have too broad of a mandate -- they think they are responsible for controlling, er, protecting _all_ transportation, not just airline travel. They have too many powers -- the ability to virtually strip-search passengers, prevent innocent people from traveling, and interfere with international commerce. And, worst of all, they've combined the military-industrial complex with a paramilitary quasi-police force. This is like an endless cold war where the people themselves are the enemy. The TSA is a terrible mess. That's the one thing we have to get rid of. The facts are that we went 70 years without the TSA just fine. The threat has not increased so much to warrant this kind of intervention. So we have tens of thousands of "officers" harassing normal business travelers daily as part of this ongoing shoddy security theater. It's a witch hunt without any witches, but with lots of government dollars, security contractors, and union jobs. They'll just keep tightening the screws until they do find something alarming. Then they'll congratulate themselves and ask for more money (and authority.) You don't need to be a genius to see where all of this is heading. The TSA is a monster and a menace to freedom. I doubt we'll ever get rid of it, but that's no reason to give up. Speaking out against it at every opportunity, to me, is a civic duty. I freely admit to being over-the-top in my language here, but you have to remember that the entire idea of the type of security state we now live in was the wildest fantasy just thirty years ago. I'm just trying to write something that will still be relevant in another 20 years or so. Using that standard, I'm not sure I've been over the top enough.

wisty 15y ago
I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. But airports could do it the way they handle general aviation safety. You don't have a TSA minder next to the pilot, giving instructions on how to lower the landing gear - there's a system in place which seems to work pretty well. You could argue that no solution (an honor system?) is better than the TSA. Or that it would be better putting the police in charge (and giving them the funds to put a couple of officers in each airport gate). If that's a waste of valuable police time, they could reduce their presence.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. Except this is how airport security was ran before 9/11. 9/11 didn't happen because costs were cut. 9/11 happened because the attackers worked the problem, discovered gaps, exploited them. Gaps that the government, who set the standards and rules for security, had no idea were there. Recall that in August, 2011 'everyone' knew that hijackers would jack the plane, hold hostages, make demands. The idea that anyone use airliners as improvised cruise missiles was so far into looney-tunes land that Tom Clancy used it as a plot device to catapult Jack Ryan into the presidency.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    """The idea that anyone use airliners as improvised cruise missiles was so far into looney-tunes land that Tom Clancy used it as a plot device to catapult Jack Ryan into the presidency.""" And that, IMO, sums up what is wrong with how we handle airport security. We continually focus on fixing what happened last time instead of looking at what could happen. Of course, once you do that, you realize there are too many variables to account for and that it is an intractable problem that needs to be approached differently.
    - bdunbar 15y ago
      Of course, once you do that, you realize there are too many variables to account for and that it is an intractable problem that needs to be approached differently. I don't see our government - or any current government being able to do that. It's like expecting Ford to suddenly decide they want to get into the software business, and stop making cars. It's just not going to happen: not in their DNA. Take 'a' proposal that would have prevented 9/11: issue every passenger a pistol and frangible ammunition. [1] Can you imagine any government doing that? Trusting their citizens to be adults? So, no: We're stuck with TSA and the government screwing the pooch by insisting they can control was can't be controlled. [1] If you want, issue them only to people who can prove competence with firearms, or veterans. Instructional videos: "So you want to use your pistol!"

wisty 15y ago

I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. But airports could do it the way they handle general aviation safety. You don't have a TSA minder next to the pilot, giving instructions on how to lower the landing gear - there's a system in place which seems to work pretty well. You could argue that no solution (an honor system?) is better than the TSA. Or that it would be better putting the police in charge (and giving them the funds to put a couple of officers in each airport gate). If that's a waste of valuable police time, they could reduce their presence.

bdunbar 15y ago
I don't think a free market solution would work - airports will cut costs until there's a disaster. Except this is how airport security was ran before 9/11. 9/11 didn't happen because costs were cut. 9/11 happened because the attackers worked the problem, discovered gaps, exploited them. Gaps that the government, who set the standards and rules for security, had no idea were there. Recall that in August, 2011 'everyone' knew that hijackers would jack the plane, hold hostages, make demands. The idea that anyone use airliners as improvised cruise missiles was so far into looney-tunes land that Tom Clancy used it as a plot device to catapult Jack Ryan into the presidency.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  """The idea that anyone use airliners as improvised cruise missiles was so far into looney-tunes land that Tom Clancy used it as a plot device to catapult Jack Ryan into the presidency.""" And that, IMO, sums up what is wrong with how we handle airport security. We continually focus on fixing what happened last time instead of looking at what could happen. Of course, once you do that, you realize there are too many variables to account for and that it is an intractable problem that needs to be approached differently.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    Of course, once you do that, you realize there are too many variables to account for and that it is an intractable problem that needs to be approached differently. I don't see our government - or any current government being able to do that. It's like expecting Ford to suddenly decide they want to get into the software business, and stop making cars. It's just not going to happen: not in their DNA. Take 'a' proposal that would have prevented 9/11: issue every passenger a pistol and frangible ammunition. [1] Can you imagine any government doing that? Trusting their citizens to be adults? So, no: We're stuck with TSA and the government screwing the pooch by insisting they can control was can't be controlled. [1] If you want, issue them only to people who can prove competence with firearms, or veterans. Instructional videos: "So you want to use your pistol!"