When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.
This.
We need the TSA.
We just need them to not be fucking retarded.
No we don't.
We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.
Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?
the ENTIRE POINT of the TSA is to enforce idiotic regulations. That is it's only power, and the sole reason for its existence. If you strip the TSA of idiotic regulations, it will cease to exist.
Or they become the equivalent to what existed in 2000 but with Federal authority and jurisdiction rather than ending past the Cinnabon.
Remind me again what they actually did in 2000? I remember one time as a kid when they let me carry a metal baseball bat onto a plane. They saw it, questioned me about it, and then waved me through.
Remind me again what they actually did in 2000? I remember one time as a kid when they let me carry a metal baseball bat onto a plane. They saw it, questioned me about it, and then waved me through.
The TSA is a feel-good organization. They're there to make people feel safer without actually doing anything other than frustrating normal passengers. Like software copy protection.
There's really only one way to completely stop terrorists from hijacking/blowing up planes, and that is to never let anyone on them ever again. As long they exist and people are allowed on, someone somewhere is going to try to hatch a nefarious plot.
I say do away with the TSA and start a massive cloning program to clone several hundred copies of Steven Seagal, then put one on each plane. That'll show the terrorists.
Even if 95% of airport security is nothing more than security theater, that doesn't make it useless. The appearance of security can be a pretty good deterrent.
that doesn't mean that it's worth the massive inconvenience, though
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Fire the TSA and replace them with Bruce Schneier.
Schneier's pieces on physical security are always good for a laugh. They can generally be summed up as "People implement things incorrectly and thus all implementations are useless". That last one he wrote on lockpicking completely ignored the idea of badge based access control, and did some handwaving dismissive of battery backups. A simple mechanical strike doesn't have a huge power draw and you can get a battery back up lasting for 48+ for the reader. He clearly spends time thinking about it, but it feels like he has no practical field experience with physical security.
What is the purpose of the "watch list" if it is not sufficient to garner extra attention at airport screening?
Seems to me that in nearly every incident, the government had information it could have or should have acted on, but didn't. So instead of acting on the information it has, the gov institutes these inane regulations so as to give the appearance of "doing something", regardless of how useless that something is.
As for profiling, there are Muslims of every ethnicity, so I don't know how that's supposed to help. If they're going off names... look up the names that are already on the damn watch list!
The purpose of the watch list was to inconvenience Muslims and the political enemies of the Bush Administration.
Except, the list also has a bunch of other non-Muslim terrorists on it, like members of the IRA (which seems kind of pointless- the IRA has never launched an attack on American soil).
If what you say is true, then the Obama administration should have gotten rid of the no-fly list a long time ago. Want to take bets on when that's going to happen?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.
This.
We need the TSA.
We just need them to not be fucking retarded.
No we don't.
We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.
Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?
the ENTIRE POINT of the TSA is to enforce idiotic regulations. That is it's only power, and the sole reason for its existence. If you strip the TSA of idiotic regulations, it will cease to exist.
Or they become the equivalent to what existed in 2000 but with Federal authority and jurisdiction rather than ending past the Cinnabon.
Remind me again what they actually did in 2000? I remember one time as a kid when they let me carry a metal baseball bat onto a plane. They saw it, questioned me about it, and then waved me through.
Why shouldn't you be able to carry a metal bat onto a plane? As mentioned in the thread, even shit like knives aren't really a concern anymore, thanks to reinforced cockpit doors and a change in passenger attitudes (mostly the latter). But a metal bat? I see no issue. That's one of those "idiotic regulations."
The TSA should be primarily concerned with two things: keeping grossly dangerous weapons (guns, probably knives too I guess) off planes, and keeping bombs off planes. The end. 99% of what they do aside from these two things is security theater, and needs to end. But those two things need to be done, and I'd prefer they were done to a set standard nationwide, rather than by whatever standard the Rent-a-Cops in Witchita or Fargo decide to set. This is best accomplished by a federal agency. Just not a fucktarded one.
When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.
This.
We need the TSA.
We just need them to not be fucking retarded.
No we don't.
We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.
Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?
the ENTIRE POINT of the TSA is to enforce idiotic regulations. That is it's only power, and the sole reason for its existence. If you strip the TSA of idiotic regulations, it will cease to exist.
Or they become the equivalent to what existed in 2000 but with Federal authority and jurisdiction rather than ending past the Cinnabon.
Remind me again what they actually did in 2000? I remember one time as a kid when they let me carry a metal baseball bat onto a plane. They saw it, questioned me about it, and then waved me through.
Why shouldn't you be able to carry a metal bat onto a plane? As mentioned in the thread, even shit like knives aren't really a concern anymore, thanks to reinforced cockpit doors and a change in passenger attitudes (mostly the latter). But a metal bat? I see no issue. That's one of those "idiotic regulations."
Bear in mind this was back when the cockpit was open. You could look in at the pilots doing their thing. Pretty easy to run in, bean the pilots in the head, then bash in the skull of anyone who tries to stop you. I'd agree it probably wouldn't do much now, though.
When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.
This.
We need the TSA.
We just need them to not be fucking retarded.
No we don't.
We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.
Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?
the ENTIRE POINT of the TSA is to enforce idiotic regulations. That is it's only power, and the sole reason for its existence. If you strip the TSA of idiotic regulations, it will cease to exist.
Or they become the equivalent to what existed in 2000 but with Federal authority and jurisdiction rather than ending past the Cinnabon.
Remind me again what they actually did in 2000? I remember one time as a kid when they let me carry a metal baseball bat onto a plane. They saw it, questioned me about it, and then waved me through.
Why shouldn't you be able to carry a metal bat onto a plane? As mentioned in the thread, even shit like knives aren't really a concern anymore, thanks to reinforced cockpit doors and a change in passenger attitudes (mostly the latter). But a metal bat? I see no issue. That's one of those "idiotic regulations."
Bear in mind this was back when the cockpit was open. You could look in at the pilots doing their thing. Pretty easy to run in, bean the pilots in the head, then bash in the skull of anyone who tries to stop you. I'd agree it probably wouldn't do much now, though.
Back in the mid-90's my history teacher brought back a replica crossbow from Italy during a summer trip. It wasn't a hunting crossbow or anything, just a working replica of a 17th or 18th or something century model that would probably put a quarrel through a sheet of plywood or some thin sheet metal. The TSA of the time made him put it in a box labeled Caution and seal it with packing tape before he carried it onto the plane.
I'm pretty sure that if someone tried that shit today they would never see sunlight again. What the hell are you going to do with a crossbow on an airplane? Or a baseball bat, or a knife, really? The 9/11 attacks were an aberration made possible by security standards that people even thought were too lax at the time. We have cockpit doors, now. We're good. But I fear that the post-9/11 frightened-mob mentality in DC put us in a position that we may not be able to crawl back out of without some kind of miracle.
What is the purpose of the "watch list" if it is not sufficient to garner extra attention at airport screening?
Seems to me that in nearly every incident, the government had information it could have or should have acted on, but didn't. So instead of acting on the information it has, the gov institutes these inane regulations so as to give the appearance of "doing something", regardless of how useless that something is.
As for profiling, there are Muslims of every ethnicity, so I don't know how that's supposed to help. If they're going off names... look up the names that are already on the damn watch list!
The purpose of the watch list was to inconvenience Muslims and the political enemies of the Bush Administration.
Except, the list also has a bunch of other non-Muslim terrorists on it, like members of the IRA (which seems kind of pointless- the IRA has never launched an attack on American soil).
If what you say is true, then the Obama administration should have gotten rid of the no-fly list a long time ago. Want to take bets on when that's going to happen?
They haven't done a lot of good in this area, so no I would not like to. Also, as previously mentioned, Jim DeMint is holding up confirmation of the new head of the TSA because he's concerned the employees may be allowed to bargain collectively.
As for evidence... I'm pretty sure Al friggin Gore ended up on the terror watch list.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
What is the purpose of the "watch list" if it is not sufficient to garner extra attention at airport screening?
Seems to me that in nearly every incident, the government had information it could have or should have acted on, but didn't. So instead of acting on the information it has, the gov institutes these inane regulations so as to give the appearance of "doing something", regardless of how useless that something is.
As for profiling, there are Muslims of every ethnicity, so I don't know how that's supposed to help. If they're going off names... look up the names that are already on the damn watch list!
The purpose of the watch list was to inconvenience Muslims and the political enemies of the Bush Administration.
Except, the list also has a bunch of other non-Muslim terrorists on it, like members of the IRA (which seems kind of pointless- the IRA has never launched an attack on American soil).
If what you say is true, then the Obama administration should have gotten rid of the no-fly list a long time ago. Want to take bets on when that's going to happen?
They haven't done a lot of good in this area, so no I would not like to. Also, as previously mentioned, Jim DeMint is holding up confirmation of the new head of the TSA because he's concerned the employees may be allowed to bargain collectively.
As for evidence... I'm pretty sure Al friggin Gore ended up on the terror watch list.
Frankly, I'm surprised I've never gotten extra security, and I fly 6-7 times a year.
I mean, if they actually decided to pop open the books I bring with me through security. Of course, these are radical Italians and Germans, not Muslims. Hell, I was reading one at the airport and I came across a very clear line that was specifically advocating "terrorism". That book got shut pretty quickly, in case anyone was looking over my shoulder.
What is the purpose of the "watch list" if it is not sufficient to garner extra attention at airport screening?
Seems to me that in nearly every incident, the government had information it could have or should have acted on, but didn't. So instead of acting on the information it has, the gov institutes these inane regulations so as to give the appearance of "doing something", regardless of how useless that something is.
As for profiling, there are Muslims of every ethnicity, so I don't know how that's supposed to help. If they're going off names... look up the names that are already on the damn watch list!
The purpose of the watch list was to inconvenience Muslims and the political enemies of the Bush Administration.
Except, the list also has a bunch of other non-Muslim terrorists on it, like members of the IRA (which seems kind of pointless- the IRA has never launched an attack on American soil).
If what you say is true, then the Obama administration should have gotten rid of the no-fly list a long time ago. Want to take bets on when that's going to happen?
They haven't done a lot of good in this area, so no I would not like to. Also, as previously mentioned, Jim DeMint is holding up confirmation of the new head of the TSA because he's concerned the employees may be allowed to bargain collectively.
As for evidence... I'm pretty sure Al friggin Gore ended up on the terror watch list.
I remember Cat Stevens not being allowed to fly one time.
And I really want to know what DeMint is thinking. "Hey, there was just a well publicized terror attack... let's make sure the TSA continues to not have any leadership!" The Dem's could really spin that back on the GOP.
Of course, I don't have much faith that they will.
What is the purpose of the "watch list" if it is not sufficient to garner extra attention at airport screening?
Seems to me that in nearly every incident, the government had information it could have or should have acted on, but didn't. So instead of acting on the information it has, the gov institutes these inane regulations so as to give the appearance of "doing something", regardless of how useless that something is.
As for profiling, there are Muslims of every ethnicity, so I don't know how that's supposed to help. If they're going off names... look up the names that are already on the damn watch list!
The purpose of the watch list was to inconvenience Muslims and the political enemies of the Bush Administration.
Except, the list also has a bunch of other non-Muslim terrorists on it, like members of the IRA (which seems kind of pointless- the IRA has never launched an attack on American soil).
If what you say is true, then the Obama administration should have gotten rid of the no-fly list a long time ago. Want to take bets on when that's going to happen?
They haven't done a lot of good in this area, so no I would not like to. Also, as previously mentioned, Jim DeMint is holding up confirmation of the new head of the TSA because he's concerned the employees may be allowed to bargain collectively.
As for evidence... I'm pretty sure Al friggin Gore ended up on the terror watch list.
I remember Cat Stevens not being allowed to fly one time.
And I really want to know what DeMint is thinking. "Hey, there was just a well publicized terror attack... let's make sure the TSA continues to not have any leadership!" The Dem's could really spin that back on the GOP.
Of course, I don't have much faith that they will.
They think that ignoring Republican attacks on national security is the right play, because Democrats inside the Beltway are the dumbest people on the planet.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I remember Cat Stevens not being allowed to fly one time.
Apparently it's possible that this was another case of a common name (in this case his Muslim name, Yusef Islam), rather than due to some tenuous accusations of support for Hamas.
I only point this out because when you say "Cat Stevens" wasn't allowed into the country, some people might not realize that he doesn't go by "Cat Stevens" anymore.
EDIT: It's only marginally less retarded this way, of course.
When a dude with a bomb enters an airport the system has already failed and that's not really the TSA's fault. Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.
This.
We need the TSA.
We just need them to not be fucking retarded.
No we don't.
We had plenty of success without them for about 40 years previous to 2001. Make the airlines check for box cutters. Problem solved.
Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?
I think sound policies are the best way to address the issue. We can still mandate standards if streamlining is necessary. Establishing another bureaucracy that hires annoying people that don't care about the actual passengers and don't answer to the airlines doesn't appear to be helpful.
Want to beef up security? No problem. Lock cockpit doors. Use no-fly lists if that is considered helpful. Even profile if needed. Give the pilots firearms. You don't need the TSA to do this. You can use a combination of other government security agencies and the airline security themselves.
The TSA is not synonymous with better security. It's just synonymous with ruining the flying experience for the 99.99% of passengers who aren't terrorists.
Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?
I think sound policies are the best way to address the issue. We can still mandate standards if streamlining is necessary. Establishing another bureaucracy that hires annoying people that don't care about the actual passengers and don't answer to the airlines doesn't appear to be helpful.
So rather than one large bureaucracy you favour numerous medium-small sized bureaucracies which hire annoying people indifferent towards actual passengers.
Want to beef up security? No problem. Lock cockpit doors. Use no-fly lists if that is considered helpful. Even profile if needed. Give the pilots firearms. You don't need the TSA to do this. You can use a combination of other government security agencies and the airline security themselves.
No, you don't need the TSA to do any of that because what you just described does not involve security personnel in the slightest. That doesn't mean there aren't other security issues where you actually do need a person inside an airport with the authority to detain people, make arrests, and/or just kick someone out of the building. To do that you do need an agency or agencies duly empowered. If not the TSA, then whom?
The TSA is not synonymous with better security. It's just synonymous with ruining the flying experience for the 99.99% of passengers who aren't terrorists.
Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?
I think sound policies are the best way to address the issue. We can still mandate standards if streamlining is necessary. Establishing another bureaucracy that hires annoying people that don't care about the actual passengers and don't answer to the airlines doesn't appear to be helpful.
So rather than one large bureaucracy you favour numerous medium-small sized bureaucracies which hire annoying people indifferent towards actual passengers.
Forcing the airlines to run security themselves makes them both accountable to be safe as well as accommodate the passengers. They aren't indifferent because they answer to the customers and not just some government agency.
Want to beef up security? No problem. Lock cockpit doors. Use no-fly lists if that is considered helpful. Even profile if needed. Give the pilots firearms. You don't need the TSA to do this. You can use a combination of other government security agencies and the airline security themselves.
No, you don't need the TSA to do any of that because what you just described does not involve security personnel in the slightest. That doesn't mean there aren't other security issues where you actually do need a person inside an airport with the authority to detain people, make arrests, and/or just kick someone out of the building. To do that you do need an agency or agencies duly empowered. If not the TSA, then whom?
We can still utilize intelligence personnel where needed to run checks or perform behavioral profiling. I just don't think we need people in special government jackets confiscating my fucking toothpaste, feeling up female passengers or running grandma through 3 lines of extra security is remotely helpful, and until they start answering to us this is the kind of shit we're going to keep getting.
The TSA is not synonymous with better security. It's just synonymous with ruining the flying experience for the 99.99% of passengers who aren't terrorists.
So throw the baby out with the bathwater, gotcha.
There is no baby here. It's a fucking abortion of an agency that doesn't do dick but perform security theater. Put intelligence in place and use it. Screen passengers as needed. But answer to the passengers and not the government or we're going to keep getting stupid policies every single year and continue to complain about them every single year.
How did we go eight pages without anyone realizing that there is already an extremely efficient airport security system we could crib off of in Israel.
Why do you feel that rentacops following varying standards dependent upon the airport they're working in is better than a TSA stripped of the idiotic regulations?
I think sound policies are the best way to address the issue. We can still mandate standards if streamlining is necessary. Establishing another bureaucracy that hires annoying people that don't care about the actual passengers and don't answer to the airlines doesn't appear to be helpful.
So rather than one large bureaucracy you favour numerous medium-small sized bureaucracies which hire annoying people indifferent towards actual passengers.
Forcing the airlines to run security themselves makes them both accountable to be safe as well as accommodate the passengers. They aren't indifferent because they answer to the customers and not just some government agency.
Right, I had forgot that public bureaucracies like the post office are bad and ineffective while private bureaucracies like AT&T or Comcast are good and responsive to people's needs.
Want to beef up security? No problem. Lock cockpit doors. Use no-fly lists if that is considered helpful. Even profile if needed. Give the pilots firearms. You don't need the TSA to do this. You can use a combination of other government security agencies and the airline security themselves.
No, you don't need the TSA to do any of that because what you just described does not involve security personnel in the slightest. That doesn't mean there aren't other security issues where you actually do need a person inside an airport with the authority to detain people, make arrests, and/or just kick someone out of the building. To do that you do need an agency or agencies duly empowered. If not the TSA, then whom?
We can still utilize intelligence personnel where needed to run checks or perform behavioral profiling. I just don't think we need people in special government jackets confiscating my fucking toothpaste, feeling up female passengers or running grandma through 3 lines of extra security is remotely helpful, and until they start answering to us this is the kind of shit we're going to keep getting.
Intelligence personnel running checks and profiling (which is the worst form of security theatre) occur prior to printing out your boarding pass unless it is performed onsite at the magnetometer. Which involves security personnel, not intelligence. And your problem with a guy in a special jacket stealing your toothpaste is a problem with the regulations not that the patch has a T, an S, and an A on it rather than two A's and an eagle.
All of your examples of improved security ignored the fact that you still need to have guys driving around the terminal buildings in a golf cart and operating scanners. That you continually ignore this also completely sidesteps the very point which undergirds my whole argument. Someone needs to be employed to stand around at airports, train stations, ports, and various other transportation depots even if all they ever do is kick homeless people out of the building you still need a body wearing a badge. There are 3 options here. 1) Rent-a-cop who has very little authority to detain and/or arrest people and whose jurisdiction ends at the revolving door and whose standards would depend on the airport. This puts the unfunded burden on local governments who own the airport and/or the various airlines who service that airport. 2) Actual-Cop who has the ability to do what regular cops do and whose jurisdiction extends beyond the parking lot and whose standards would depend on the airport/city the airport is in. This puts the unfunded burden on the local government and their police department. 3) TSA who has the ability to do what regular cops do, whose jurisdiction encompasses the country as a whole, and whose standards would be consistent throughout the continent. This puts the actually funded burden on the Federal government from training to paychecks.
Why do you believe that the first 2 is superior to the 3rd, and why do you believe that a Delta employed rent-a-cop won't be confiscating toothpaste or hassling grandma?
The TSA is not synonymous with better security. It's just synonymous with ruining the flying experience for the 99.99% of passengers who aren't terrorists.
So throw the baby out with the bathwater, gotcha.
There is no baby here. It's a fucking abortion of an agency that doesn't do dick but perform security theater. Put intelligence in place and use it. Screen passengers as needed. But answer to the passengers and not the government or we're going to keep getting stupid policies every single year and continue to complain about them every single year.
So your problem isn't with the TSA but with the regulations it enforces? How original a complaint. If only I had made a similar claim. Oh wait, I did.
Otherwise, yeah they should probably exist. Just not with all the idiotic regulations that we have which do nothing to make people more safe just more annoyed. Airports, train stations, ports et. al. need some form of security personnel and having them be feds rather than rentacops, or putting more of a burden on local police, doesn't seem like that horrible of an idea.
So how is abolishing the TSA a superior method for dealing with the real prospect that transportation hubs require security? Private enterprise is hardly immune from conjuring up stupid policies to cover their ass with PR, nor does it remove Congress' power over domestic policy and interstate travel.
Why do you believe that the first 2 is superior to the 3rd, and why do you believe that a Delta employed rent-a-cop won't be confiscating toothpaste or hassling grandma?
Because when the delta employees do this, they have to answer to the delta customers and the stockholders. When the TSA does it they don't have to answer to anyone except the department above them.
So yeah Delta could just as likely enact stupid policies and then I can go fly American, or bitch at Delta and watch them get bad press and take a stock hit encouraging them to immediately stop their stupid security policies or simply go under as an airline.
And if they don't enforce quality security? They can't go blame the TSA like they do now. They can only blame themselves and face the wrath of their customer base. It's a fine line to walk. Provide quality security policies that actually work or lose money. Period.
Why do you believe that the first 2 is superior to the 3rd, and why do you believe that a Delta employed rent-a-cop won't be confiscating toothpaste or hassling grandma?
Because when the delta employees do this, they have to answer to the delta customers and the stockholders. When the TSA does it they don't have to answer to anyone except the department above them.
So yeah Delta could just as likely enact stupid policies and then I can go fly American, or bitch at Delta and watch them get bad press and take a stock hit encouraging them to immediately stop their stupid security policies or simply go under as an airline.
And if they don't enforce quality security? They can't go blame the TSA like they do now. They can only blame themselves and face the wrath of their customer base. It's a fine line to walk. Provide quality security policies that actually work or lose money. Period.
Why would Delta/American/etc. be running the security? It would be whichever contractor runs JFK/SFO/LAX/etc. surely? Last I checked you can't just say "well then I won't fly from SFO", unless you set up competing airports.
Edit: Or are you suggesting that each airline has its own security at each airport? I'm pretty sure the airlines certainly wouldn't want to do that.
Coldred on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Why do you believe that the first 2 is superior to the 3rd, and why do you believe that a Delta employed rent-a-cop won't be confiscating toothpaste or hassling grandma?
Because when the delta employees do this, they have to answer to the delta customers and the stockholders. When the TSA does it they don't have to answer to anyone except the department above them.
So yeah Delta could just as likely enact stupid policies and then I can go fly American, or bitch at Delta and watch them get bad press and take a stock hit encouraging them to immediately stop their stupid security policies or simply go under as an airline.
And if they don't enforce quality security? They can't go blame the TSA like they do now. They can only blame themselves and face the wrath of their customer base. It's a fine line to walk. Provide quality security policies that actually work or lose money. Period.
Why would Delta/American/etc. be running the security? It would be whichever contractor runs JFK/SFO/LAX/etc. surely? Last I checked you can't just say "well then I won't fly from SFO", unless you set up competing airports.
Edit: Or are you suggesting that each airline has its own security at each airport? I'm pretty sure the airlines certainly wouldn't want to do that.
Before 9/11 that's actually how it worked. Airlines would provide their own contracted security or form a consortium to cover a terminal.
Why do you believe that the first 2 is superior to the 3rd, and why do you believe that a Delta employed rent-a-cop won't be confiscating toothpaste or hassling grandma?
Because when the delta employees do this, they have to answer to the delta customers and the stockholders. When the TSA does it they don't have to answer to anyone except the department above them.
So yeah Delta could just as likely enact stupid policies and then I can go fly American, or bitch at Delta and watch them get bad press and take a stock hit encouraging them to immediately stop their stupid security policies or simply go under as an airline.
And if they don't enforce quality security? They can't go blame the TSA like they do now. They can only blame themselves and face the wrath of their customer base. It's a fine line to walk. Provide quality security policies that actually work or lose money. Period.
Why would Delta/American/etc. be running the security? It would be whichever contractor runs JFK/SFO/LAX/etc. surely? Last I checked you can't just say "well then I won't fly from SFO", unless you set up competing airports.
Edit: Or are you suggesting that each airline has its own security at each airport? I'm pretty sure the airlines certainly wouldn't want to do that.
Before 9/11 that's actually how it worked. Airlines would provide their own contracted security or form a consortium to cover a terminal.
Fair enough. But in a *ugh*, "post-9/11" world, would the airlines now want to take that responsibility back on? The business risk would be immense.
Why do you believe that the first 2 is superior to the 3rd, and why do you believe that a Delta employed rent-a-cop won't be confiscating toothpaste or hassling grandma?
Because when the delta employees do this, they have to answer to the delta customers and the stockholders. When the TSA does it they don't have to answer to anyone except the department above them.
Right, the stockholders as a whole have security guard #11395 on speed dial rather than having numerous bureaucratic departments between each other. Egads, its almost as if private enterprise is just as dismissive of customer complaints when they have monopolistic control over things as the government! Shocking!
So yeah Delta could just as likely enact stupid policies and then I can go fly American, or bitch at Delta and watch them get bad press and take a stock hit encouraging them to immediately stop their stupid security policies or simply go under as an airline.
Only if airports decide to implement security at the gate or to each terminal building rather than between the ticket counter and everywhere behind it. Which, speaking of needless redundancy and bureaucracy...
So I guess you're stuck with whatever stupid policies Delta enacts for PR and covering their own asses since American has no control over the security policies or the capacity to change them for their customers in particular in order to capitalize on the market demand for less stupid regulations. Unless, of course, every airline builds their own airport in a different part of town...
And if they don't enforce quality security? They can't go blame the TSA like they do now. They can only blame themselves and face the wrath of their customer base. It's a fine line to walk. Provide quality security policies that actually work or lose money. Period.
Didn't you just suggest that the only quality security policies that can be implemented don't actually involve anybody in the airport itself not 2 posts ago? The problem of the tighty-whitey bomber getting past security wasn't a NorthWest problem, it was an airport screening problem. One that applies to all passengers departing from that airport regardless of what flight they get on. So how does the customer base expose their wrath? Drive for hours and hours to a different airport? Take Delta or American Airlines even though they're no better at security enforcement thus making the business prospect of losing money simply a bet on the roulette wheel of fate? Your 'solution' doesn't solve anything, it just gives the appearance of doing something without improving airline safety. As if it were a theatre of some sort related to security.
moniker on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Fair enough. But in a *ugh*, "post-9/11" world, would the airlines now want to take that responsibility back on? The business risk would be immense.
In terms of financial risk, they didn't bear the majority of the costs for 9/11. Of the lawsuits that went forward, they ended up paying out $500 million or so. The question becomes if they think the TSA costs the industry that much. And some of the airports are still serviced by private security companies but they report to the TSA rather then the airports.
I'm not a big fan of the current TSA. They've developed a culture of making sure they look good and sloppy oversight. But the pre 9/11 system was extremely loose, and I don't have a better alternative short of massively expanding the Customs service, the FAA or the Marshals service.
And if they don't enforce quality security? They can't go blame the TSA like they do now. They can only blame themselves and face the wrath of their customer base. It's a fine line to walk. Provide quality security policies that actually work or lose money. Period.
Didn't you just suggest that the only quality security policies that can be implemented don't actually involve anybody in the airport itself not 2 posts ago? The problem of the tighty-whitey bomber getting past security wasn't a NorthWest problem, it was an airport screening problem. One that applies to all passengers departing from that airport regardless of what flight they get on. So how does the customer base expose their wrath? Drive for hours and hours to a different airport? Take Delta or American Airlines even though they're no better at security enforcement thus making the business prospect of losing money simply a bet on the roulette wheel of fate? Your 'solution' doesn't solve anything, it just gives the appearance of doing something without improving airline safety. As if it were a theatre of some sort related to security.
Except that his solution involves letting the free market work it out, and thus is obviously best.
Also, pilots with guns? Can't you see potential problems that could create? I'm immediately reminded of the scene in the Hunt for Red October where Sean Connery mentions things not reacting too well to bullets. And I don't think pilots are currently hired based on their marksmanship.
Things have already gotten critically out of hand if someone is able to bust down a reinforced door to the cockpit.
Er, I was thinking primarily about hitting the windows, and secondarily about missing and hitting a friendly (if not with the shot directly potentially with a ricochet). I know a handgun probably wouldn't pierce very far into the metal chassis of a passenger jet, but you might be able to break a window and depressurize the cabin. Which is apparently what the pants bomber was aiming for.
Of course there is a much more straightforward method of depressurizing the cabin than using a weapon, but ssshhh don't tell anybody.
Er, I was thinking primarily about hitting the windows, and secondarily about missing and hitting a friendly (if not with the shot directly potentially with a ricochet). I know a handgun probably wouldn't pierce very far into the metal chassis of a passenger jet, but you might be able to break a window and depressurize the cabin. Which is apparently what the pants bomber was aiming for.
Of course there is a much more straightforward method of depressurizing the cabin than using a weapon, but ssshhh don't tell anybody.
The pants bomber was aiming to rip a hole in the cabin. Depressurizing or blowing out windows doesn't do much unless you FOD an engine with the debries; that's why airlines have oxygen masks.
If you blow a real hole, though, the plane is probably screwed. Small holes get hit by air resistance and get ripped into big holes.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the government reviews how an alleged terrorist was able to bring a bomb onto a U.S.-bound plane and try to blow it up on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration is going after bloggers who wrote about a directive to increase security after the incident.
TSA special agents served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott, demanding that they reveal who leaked the security directive to them. The government says the directive was not supposed to be disclosed to the public.
I saw the story about the bloggers. A document sent to ten thousand people across multiple countries that details things the public will figure out pretty damn quickly on their own and it is supposed to stay secret?
Wouldn't the hole just get clogged up with dead bodies or objects pretty quick?
Depends how big the hole is! Small holes, yes. Or if they don't it doesn't matter. (O2 masks). Depressurizing really isn't a problem. Losing structural integrity is.
Posts
The TSA didn't exist in 2000...
There's really only one way to completely stop terrorists from hijacking/blowing up planes, and that is to never let anyone on them ever again. As long they exist and people are allowed on, someone somewhere is going to try to hatch a nefarious plot.
I say do away with the TSA and start a massive cloning program to clone several hundred copies of Steven Seagal, then put one on each plane. That'll show the terrorists.
that doesn't mean that it's worth the massive inconvenience, though
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Schneier's pieces on physical security are always good for a laugh. They can generally be summed up as "People implement things incorrectly and thus all implementations are useless". That last one he wrote on lockpicking completely ignored the idea of badge based access control, and did some handwaving dismissive of battery backups. A simple mechanical strike doesn't have a huge power draw and you can get a battery back up lasting for 48+ for the reader. He clearly spends time thinking about it, but it feels like he has no practical field experience with physical security.
He's an idea compiler.
If what you say is true, then the Obama administration should have gotten rid of the no-fly list a long time ago. Want to take bets on when that's going to happen?
Rigorous Scholarship
Why shouldn't you be able to carry a metal bat onto a plane? As mentioned in the thread, even shit like knives aren't really a concern anymore, thanks to reinforced cockpit doors and a change in passenger attitudes (mostly the latter). But a metal bat? I see no issue. That's one of those "idiotic regulations."
The TSA should be primarily concerned with two things: keeping grossly dangerous weapons (guns, probably knives too I guess) off planes, and keeping bombs off planes. The end. 99% of what they do aside from these two things is security theater, and needs to end. But those two things need to be done, and I'd prefer they were done to a set standard nationwide, rather than by whatever standard the Rent-a-Cops in Witchita or Fargo decide to set. This is best accomplished by a federal agency. Just not a fucktarded one.
Back in the mid-90's my history teacher brought back a replica crossbow from Italy during a summer trip. It wasn't a hunting crossbow or anything, just a working replica of a 17th or 18th or something century model that would probably put a quarrel through a sheet of plywood or some thin sheet metal. The TSA of the time made him put it in a box labeled Caution and seal it with packing tape before he carried it onto the plane.
I'm pretty sure that if someone tried that shit today they would never see sunlight again. What the hell are you going to do with a crossbow on an airplane? Or a baseball bat, or a knife, really? The 9/11 attacks were an aberration made possible by security standards that people even thought were too lax at the time. We have cockpit doors, now. We're good. But I fear that the post-9/11 frightened-mob mentality in DC put us in a position that we may not be able to crawl back out of without some kind of miracle.
They haven't done a lot of good in this area, so no I would not like to. Also, as previously mentioned, Jim DeMint is holding up confirmation of the new head of the TSA because he's concerned the employees may be allowed to bargain collectively.
As for evidence... I'm pretty sure Al friggin Gore ended up on the terror watch list.
Frankly, I'm surprised I've never gotten extra security, and I fly 6-7 times a year.
I mean, if they actually decided to pop open the books I bring with me through security. Of course, these are radical Italians and Germans, not Muslims. Hell, I was reading one at the airport and I came across a very clear line that was specifically advocating "terrorism". That book got shut pretty quickly, in case anyone was looking over my shoulder.
I remember Cat Stevens not being allowed to fly one time.
And I really want to know what DeMint is thinking. "Hey, there was just a well publicized terror attack... let's make sure the TSA continues to not have any leadership!" The Dem's could really spin that back on the GOP.
Of course, I don't have much faith that they will.
They think that ignoring Republican attacks on national security is the right play, because Democrats inside the Beltway are the dumbest people on the planet.
Apparently it's possible that this was another case of a common name (in this case his Muslim name, Yusef Islam), rather than due to some tenuous accusations of support for Hamas.
I only point this out because when you say "Cat Stevens" wasn't allowed into the country, some people might not realize that he doesn't go by "Cat Stevens" anymore.
EDIT: It's only marginally less retarded this way, of course.
I think sound policies are the best way to address the issue. We can still mandate standards if streamlining is necessary. Establishing another bureaucracy that hires annoying people that don't care about the actual passengers and don't answer to the airlines doesn't appear to be helpful.
Want to beef up security? No problem. Lock cockpit doors. Use no-fly lists if that is considered helpful. Even profile if needed. Give the pilots firearms. You don't need the TSA to do this. You can use a combination of other government security agencies and the airline security themselves.
The TSA is not synonymous with better security. It's just synonymous with ruining the flying experience for the 99.99% of passengers who aren't terrorists.
So rather than one large bureaucracy you favour numerous medium-small sized bureaucracies which hire annoying people indifferent towards actual passengers.
No, you don't need the TSA to do any of that because what you just described does not involve security personnel in the slightest. That doesn't mean there aren't other security issues where you actually do need a person inside an airport with the authority to detain people, make arrests, and/or just kick someone out of the building. To do that you do need an agency or agencies duly empowered. If not the TSA, then whom?
So throw the baby out with the bathwater, gotcha.
Forcing the airlines to run security themselves makes them both accountable to be safe as well as accommodate the passengers. They aren't indifferent because they answer to the customers and not just some government agency.
We can still utilize intelligence personnel where needed to run checks or perform behavioral profiling. I just don't think we need people in special government jackets confiscating my fucking toothpaste, feeling up female passengers or running grandma through 3 lines of extra security is remotely helpful, and until they start answering to us this is the kind of shit we're going to keep getting.
There is no baby here. It's a fucking abortion of an agency that doesn't do dick but perform security theater. Put intelligence in place and use it. Screen passengers as needed. But answer to the passengers and not the government or we're going to keep getting stupid policies every single year and continue to complain about them every single year.
Right, I had forgot that public bureaucracies like the post office are bad and ineffective while private bureaucracies like AT&T or Comcast are good and responsive to people's needs.
Intelligence personnel running checks and profiling (which is the worst form of security theatre) occur prior to printing out your boarding pass unless it is performed onsite at the magnetometer. Which involves security personnel, not intelligence. And your problem with a guy in a special jacket stealing your toothpaste is a problem with the regulations not that the patch has a T, an S, and an A on it rather than two A's and an eagle.
All of your examples of improved security ignored the fact that you still need to have guys driving around the terminal buildings in a golf cart and operating scanners. That you continually ignore this also completely sidesteps the very point which undergirds my whole argument. Someone needs to be employed to stand around at airports, train stations, ports, and various other transportation depots even if all they ever do is kick homeless people out of the building you still need a body wearing a badge. There are 3 options here. 1) Rent-a-cop who has very little authority to detain and/or arrest people and whose jurisdiction ends at the revolving door and whose standards would depend on the airport. This puts the unfunded burden on local governments who own the airport and/or the various airlines who service that airport. 2) Actual-Cop who has the ability to do what regular cops do and whose jurisdiction extends beyond the parking lot and whose standards would depend on the airport/city the airport is in. This puts the unfunded burden on the local government and their police department. 3) TSA who has the ability to do what regular cops do, whose jurisdiction encompasses the country as a whole, and whose standards would be consistent throughout the continent. This puts the actually funded burden on the Federal government from training to paychecks.
Why do you believe that the first 2 is superior to the 3rd, and why do you believe that a Delta employed rent-a-cop won't be confiscating toothpaste or hassling grandma?
So your problem isn't with the TSA but with the regulations it enforces? How original a complaint. If only I had made a similar claim. Oh wait, I did.
So how is abolishing the TSA a superior method for dealing with the real prospect that transportation hubs require security? Private enterprise is hardly immune from conjuring up stupid policies to cover their ass with PR, nor does it remove Congress' power over domestic policy and interstate travel.
Because when the delta employees do this, they have to answer to the delta customers and the stockholders. When the TSA does it they don't have to answer to anyone except the department above them.
So yeah Delta could just as likely enact stupid policies and then I can go fly American, or bitch at Delta and watch them get bad press and take a stock hit encouraging them to immediately stop their stupid security policies or simply go under as an airline.
And if they don't enforce quality security? They can't go blame the TSA like they do now. They can only blame themselves and face the wrath of their customer base. It's a fine line to walk. Provide quality security policies that actually work or lose money. Period.
Why would Delta/American/etc. be running the security? It would be whichever contractor runs JFK/SFO/LAX/etc. surely? Last I checked you can't just say "well then I won't fly from SFO", unless you set up competing airports.
Edit: Or are you suggesting that each airline has its own security at each airport? I'm pretty sure the airlines certainly wouldn't want to do that.
Before 9/11 that's actually how it worked. Airlines would provide their own contracted security or form a consortium to cover a terminal.
Fair enough. But in a *ugh*, "post-9/11" world, would the airlines now want to take that responsibility back on? The business risk would be immense.
Right, the stockholders as a whole have security guard #11395 on speed dial rather than having numerous bureaucratic departments between each other. Egads, its almost as if private enterprise is just as dismissive of customer complaints when they have monopolistic control over things as the government! Shocking!
Only if airports decide to implement security at the gate or to each terminal building rather than between the ticket counter and everywhere behind it. Which, speaking of needless redundancy and bureaucracy...
So I guess you're stuck with whatever stupid policies Delta enacts for PR and covering their own asses since American has no control over the security policies or the capacity to change them for their customers in particular in order to capitalize on the market demand for less stupid regulations. Unless, of course, every airline builds their own airport in a different part of town...
Didn't you just suggest that the only quality security policies that can be implemented don't actually involve anybody in the airport itself not 2 posts ago? The problem of the tighty-whitey bomber getting past security wasn't a NorthWest problem, it was an airport screening problem. One that applies to all passengers departing from that airport regardless of what flight they get on. So how does the customer base expose their wrath? Drive for hours and hours to a different airport? Take Delta or American Airlines even though they're no better at security enforcement thus making the business prospect of losing money simply a bet on the roulette wheel of fate? Your 'solution' doesn't solve anything, it just gives the appearance of doing something without improving airline safety. As if it were a theatre of some sort related to security.
In terms of financial risk, they didn't bear the majority of the costs for 9/11. Of the lawsuits that went forward, they ended up paying out $500 million or so. The question becomes if they think the TSA costs the industry that much. And some of the airports are still serviced by private security companies but they report to the TSA rather then the airports.
I'm not a big fan of the current TSA. They've developed a culture of making sure they look good and sloppy oversight. But the pre 9/11 system was extremely loose, and I don't have a better alternative short of massively expanding the Customs service, the FAA or the Marshals service.
Except that his solution involves letting the free market work it out, and thus is obviously best.
Things have already gotten critically out of hand if someone is able to bust down a reinforced door to the cockpit.
Of course there is a much more straightforward method of depressurizing the cabin than using a weapon, but ssshhh don't tell anybody.
The pants bomber was aiming to rip a hole in the cabin. Depressurizing or blowing out windows doesn't do much unless you FOD an engine with the debries; that's why airlines have oxygen masks.
If you blow a real hole, though, the plane is probably screwed. Small holes get hit by air resistance and get ripped into big holes.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Nope, nothing wrong with the TSA at all.
Wouldn't the hole just get clogged up with dead bodies or objects pretty quick?
Those yellow masks drop down and the plane lands at a different airport than it was supposed to.
Depends how big the hole is! Small holes, yes. Or if they don't it doesn't matter. (O2 masks). Depressurizing really isn't a problem. Losing structural integrity is.
edit: I mean, think about this for a minute. The cabin is pressurized, but it's not as though there's a hard vaccuum outside
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget