4 ms·

While the TSA is messed up and all that, Americans shouldn't be too quick to turn to private companies. Private companies would be profit focused, this means th

by cdooh 14y ago

While the TSA is messed up and all that, Americans shouldn't be too quick to turn to private companies. Private companies would be profit focused, this means that any way to minimise costs will be taken which may compromise security. I give you Blackwater in Iraq as a good example

bcoates 14y ago
I think when most people ask for "private companies" they mean cheaper, less intrusive security theater, in the pre-2001 vein.
- Firehed 14y ago
  The pre-2001 screening was perfectly fine, and would still work today (maybe excepting the improvements to detecting plastic explosives, although I imagine that screening would have picked up the detonators just fine). The other major improvement to security was locking, reinforced cockpit doors, which should have been the standard on all commercial aircraft from the start. What went wrong during 9/11 was that passengers assumed that a hijacking was a financially-motivated detour, rather than a political/religious attack on our ways of life (and prior to that day, there was no reason to assume otherwise). As such, there was very little resistance to the hijackers as people didn't want to get cut by a relatively small knife. Had they had even the faintest idea that failure to resist could have resulted in what happened, you can say with 100% confidence that things would have gone down differently. Basically, that trick was good once and once only, regardless of the change in security policy that it brought about. And let's face it - only an idiot would try that again; there are targets with far higher value (and probably much more exploitable security flaws) if someone wanted to send a message again.
  - gknoy 14y ago
    > only an idiot would try that again; there are targets with far higher value (and probably much more exploitable security flaws) if someone wanted to send a message again. Specifically, the large gatherings of tightly-clustered people waiting at a security checkpoint are much more vulnerable than any plane full of passengers.
    - Firehed 14y ago
      The number of times I've wanted to find a non-harmful way to prove that point (smoke grenades come to mind)... but the risk to me is not worth it, and all it would do is introduce some sort of pre-security screening that completely fails to solve the problem.
angersock 14y ago
God forbid that we lose the paladins of security that are the TSA representatives! Given the odds of actually needing them vs. the continued inconvenience of travel, I'll go with the convenience every time.
smokeyj 14y ago
You trust a private corporation to strap you to a flying hunk of metal, but not to ensure your safety? Sounds logical..
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Good point, however the regulation imposed on airlines would have to be some of the strictest of any industry.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Airlines, at least in the US, are quasi-government corporations run by courts and unions in a state of near perpetual bankruptcy.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The "majors" are, but Southwest and JetBlue are obvious counterexamples.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Right, I was thinking of Delta, United, etc.
- illuminate 14y ago
  I do not trust a mercenary police force, no. I trust private engineers to certify a plane's operation. Besides that as the poster above you mentioned, Blackwater is what happens when you trust the worst sorts of persons to protect the nation.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  It's perfectly logical. The power to search and detain me isn't one I'd like private corporations to have.
chevas 14y ago
There are good private companies and bad ones. A good company is going to cut costs where costs need to be cut without sacrificing the quality of the product/service. I'm sure there are a number of good security companies that would provide excellent security, and do it cheaper.
mikeash 14y ago
Security is already highly compromised, and apparently isn't too necessary.
- cdooh 14y ago
  I'd rather have a public entity than a private entity with poor oversight
  - jerf 14y ago
    You speak as if a "public entity" automatically gets to assume non-poor oversight. This would seem to fly in the face of reality a bit.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    I was merely addressing the idea that privatization would compromise security, not making any commentary on the general preferability of the two.
jdreaver 14y ago
I hope we get someone profit focused, because if they repeatedly violate our rights, then we (or the airlines) can do something about it and fire them, therefore removing their profit. In the current system, the incompetent TSA suckles on the taxpayers teet regardless of the quality of their work. The politicians justify their existence with the biggest lie ever used to take our rights: safety. Also, since when is "profit" a bad word? Using the means of free trade to improve one's situation is the foundation of civilization. People act as if the quest for profit turns you into some sort of Scrooge McDuck figure who counts dollars and stashes money away never to be seen again.

by cdooh 14y ago

bcoates 14y ago

I think when most people ask for "private companies" they mean cheaper, less intrusive security theater, in the pre-2001 vein.

Firehed 14y ago
The pre-2001 screening was perfectly fine, and would still work today (maybe excepting the improvements to detecting plastic explosives, although I imagine that screening would have picked up the detonators just fine). The other major improvement to security was locking, reinforced cockpit doors, which should have been the standard on all commercial aircraft from the start. What went wrong during 9/11 was that passengers assumed that a hijacking was a financially-motivated detour, rather than a political/religious attack on our ways of life (and prior to that day, there was no reason to assume otherwise). As such, there was very little resistance to the hijackers as people didn't want to get cut by a relatively small knife. Had they had even the faintest idea that failure to resist could have resulted in what happened, you can say with 100% confidence that things would have gone down differently. Basically, that trick was good once and once only, regardless of the change in security policy that it brought about. And let's face it - only an idiot would try that again; there are targets with far higher value (and probably much more exploitable security flaws) if someone wanted to send a message again.
- gknoy 14y ago
  > only an idiot would try that again; there are targets with far higher value (and probably much more exploitable security flaws) if someone wanted to send a message again. Specifically, the large gatherings of tightly-clustered people waiting at a security checkpoint are much more vulnerable than any plane full of passengers.
  - Firehed 14y ago
    The number of times I've wanted to find a non-harmful way to prove that point (smoke grenades come to mind)... but the risk to me is not worth it, and all it would do is introduce some sort of pre-security screening that completely fails to solve the problem.

angersock 14y ago

God forbid that we lose the paladins of security that are the TSA representatives! Given the odds of actually needing them vs. the continued inconvenience of travel, I'll go with the convenience every time.

smokeyj 14y ago

You trust a private corporation to strap you to a flying hunk of metal, but not to ensure your safety? Sounds logical..

lostlogin 14y ago
Good point, however the regulation imposed on airlines would have to be some of the strictest of any industry.
rayiner 14y ago
Airlines, at least in the US, are quasi-government corporations run by courts and unions in a state of near perpetual bankruptcy.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The "majors" are, but Southwest and JetBlue are obvious counterexamples.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Right, I was thinking of Delta, United, etc.
illuminate 14y ago
I do not trust a mercenary police force, no. I trust private engineers to certify a plane's operation. Besides that as the poster above you mentioned, Blackwater is what happens when you trust the worst sorts of persons to protect the nation.
ceejayoz 14y ago
It's perfectly logical. The power to search and detain me isn't one I'd like private corporations to have.

chevas 14y ago

There are good private companies and bad ones. A good company is going to cut costs where costs need to be cut without sacrificing the quality of the product/service. I'm sure there are a number of good security companies that would provide excellent security, and do it cheaper.

mikeash 14y ago

Security is already highly compromised, and apparently isn't too necessary.

cdooh 14y ago
I'd rather have a public entity than a private entity with poor oversight
- jerf 14y ago
  You speak as if a "public entity" automatically gets to assume non-poor oversight. This would seem to fly in the face of reality a bit.
- mikeash 14y ago
  I was merely addressing the idea that privatization would compromise security, not making any commentary on the general preferability of the two.

jdreaver 14y ago

I hope we get someone profit focused, because if they repeatedly violate our rights, then we (or the airlines) can do something about it and fire them, therefore removing their profit. In the current system, the incompetent TSA suckles on the taxpayers teet regardless of the quality of their work. The politicians justify their existence with the biggest lie ever used to take our rights: safety. Also, since when is "profit" a bad word? Using the means of free trade to improve one's situation is the foundation of civilization. People act as if the quest for profit turns you into some sort of Scrooge McDuck figure who counts dollars and stashes money away never to be seen again.