TSA Employee Caught With $200K Worth of Stolen Property

The plane moves me or I move the plane? writes "After years of people complaining about their luggage locks being broken in the name of the Transportation Security Administration, and after countless properly-stowed utilities and tools had been scrutinized from a paranoid point of view, an employee of the TSA (which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) has been captured with evidence of over $200,000 worth of stolen property he was selling on eBay. With the help of local police and the USPS, a search of his house found a great deal of property pilfered from the un-witnessed searches that occurred after luggage had been checked, where the rightful owner was not allowed. 'Among the items seized were 66 cameras, 31 laptop computers, 20 cell phones, 17 sets of electronic games, 13 pieces of jewelry, 12 GPS devices, 11 MP3 players, eight camera lenses, six video cameras and two DVD players, the affidavit said.'"

Comments

thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

jesus christ.

i'm mailing my shit next time.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

which is why my laptop, camera, and phone never leave my sight.

Re:thieves standing around

[SterlingSylver]

The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees. Lazy employees have been stealing random valuables being transported from the time that the first wagons and boats got invented.

Re:thieves standing around

[Timothy Brownawell]

The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees.

...who only have the opportunity/incentive to be dishonest because of the "un-witnessed searches", yes?

Re:thieves standing around

[Neoprofin]

Right, because nothing was ever stolen from baggage until a few years ago...

Re:thieves standing around

[Russ Nelson]

We weren't prevented from locking our baggage until a few years ago.

Re:thieves standing around

[tacocat]

Actually, it used to be that you could carry on all your most valuable items and be able to travel with some degree of personal property security because you were personally in charge of it.

Today the less you carry on, the less hassle you get. Problem now is that everything you check is likely to be rummaged. I've lost diving gear without recourse. Kind of a pain.

I have little interest in traveling by air anymore for just this reason. The less you carry, the better chance of you arriving. I don't think there is any real security considering. For $200,000 from one person, I wonder just how many travelors are victims of robbery there are since HSA versus the number of travelors turned victims from terrorists.

Re:thieves standing around

[UnderCoverPenguin]

which is why my laptop, camera, and phone never leave my sight.

You don't have a choice. The TSA has the authority to seize anything. You either give it to them or get arrested and they take it anyway.

The issue here is that instead of following procedure and putting the items in the TSA system, the agent decided to keep them. This is not new. I remember, as a kid, reading about about a customs agent caught keeping items he had seized. Legally. The government charged him with stealing government property. The items in question where never returned to their original owners.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

what i mean is, they don't go into checked luggage, they go with me as carry-on.

and yes, i know that they can do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it.

but what really burns my ass (other than the obvious bullshit with the TSA) is the increasing authoritarianism in the US. and what else really gets me is that people in other countries criticize Americans for this as if we had some say-so in the matter.

Re:thieves standing around

[Kandenshi]

Of course they do. You, personally, might not have voted for the incomptents that are pushing for this sort of thing/not actively working to make it illegal... But many of your peers did.

I'd say that in at LEAST 2/3rds of the conversations I've ever had with Americans about the 2nd amendment, they bring up the idea that a well armed populace will keep the government from doing illegal things, because the populace will call them to account.
I'm not suggesting that shooting people is the appropriate response to luggage being stolen, but I've never once gotten a satisfactory answer as to what will cause the people to rise up. It seems to me that the ability to own shitloads of guns hasn't been used very effectively over the history of the USA to enforce the constitution or the rights of human beings. It still might in the future, but I'm not optimistic. As long as American Idol is still playing, and Walmart is still selling clothes for cheap, the vast majority of the American people seem unwilling to risk their own comfortable lives over things like the contitution, their rights or more particularly, the rights of others.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

correct.

we could, but we *won't*..we won't throw these fucking tyrants out because, because people are fucking sheep.

individuals can't do it, because they'll be arrested and/or shot in the process. we would have to have the whole fucking populace just up and storm the capital buildings, oppressive police districts, etc.

i mean, all at fucking once -- and that's never going to happen.

the slow, steady decline into authoritarianism has no foreseeable end. god, it's depressing.

it's almost enough to make me want to just end it all.

Re:thieves standing around

[TheLink]

Why should they rise up?

If they were genuinely upset, they should start voting for some other parties.

I'd say most appear satisfied with either one of the Two Parties given that 99% of them voted for one of the Two in 2004 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004 )

So it'll be going against the People's will if some misguided patriot started a revolution or shot people.

Or is it really a case of lots of people not voting for The Other Parties just because they all think it will be a wasted vote? If that's so, maybe they should do some polling so they can figure out how many would actually vote for "Some Other Party" assuming they're not playing the "game theory"/"voting game" stuff.

But I honestly doubt it, judging even from the remarks on Slashdot. Most are like the Pro Wrestling Team supporters.

Re:thieves standing around

[riceboy50]

When the government acts with malice towards the populace, they can make it so difficult to monitor and defeat their initiatives that the average person just does not have enough time—let alone willpower—to act against them. Those that are willing to make that sacrifice are demonized and discredited by the media.

Re:thieves standing around

[ultranova]

we could, but we *won't*..we won't throw these fucking tyrants out because, because people are fucking sheep.

No, people don't throw them out because people are wolves. Each of them is all too happy to partake in the meal when shit happens to someone else; it's only when shit happens to yourself when the wolf howls a protest, and even then only until it's his turn to eat again.

A tyrant can keep armed populace under control just fine, just as long as he manages to spin it as an opportunity to feast on their neighbours - the American Dream, in other words. As long as each wolf things he can become the Alpha Wolf, he's only too happy to make sure the Alpha has godlike status and no checks on his power.

Re:thieves standing around

[allacds]

I'd say most appear satisfied with either one of the Two Parties given that 99% of them voted for one of the Two in 2004 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004 )

What I think you mean to say is that 99% of those that voted did so for one of the two major party candidates. Approx 120M voted in that election, per your source above. In 2004, there were more than 200M - probably more like 215-220M - adults in the US (I see there were 210M in 2000, but can't find better numbers than that for 2004 on census.gov).

So yes, 99% of the voting population voted for one of them, but what about the disenfranchised 40-50% of adults who did not vote?

Re:thieves standing around

[SL Baur]

Fixed that for you. Don't think that 0 attacks on the news is for the terrorists' lack of trying.

ALL of the attacks on airports, malls, etc. in my adopted home country (the Philippines) since 9/11/2001 would have succeeded in the US. And in the Philippines you must pass through security to even get inside any public building.

Some countries, like the Philippines, have a terrorist problem. Other countries like the US, do not.

And your point is?

Re:thieves standing around

[cp.tar]

There have been 0 completed acts of terrorism in the US since 2001 Fixed that for you. Don't think that 0 attacks on the news is for the terrorists' lack of trying.

I should think that informing the public of a successfully prevented attack increases people's confidence in the new counter-terrorist measures, establishes their necessity, and makes people more willing to suffer additional losses of freedom to increase their perceived security.

No. If there had been any real attempts since 2001, the US and the world would have heard of it.

Re:thieves standing around

[toddestan]

There have been several completed acts of terrorism in the US since 2001.

Fixed that for you. The Anthrax mailings? The DC snipers? The smiley face bomber? How quickly you people forget.

Re:thieves standing around

[anagama]

Airplane terrorism really isn't all that effective. In contrast, blow a series of holes in the Colonial Pipeline -- 5500 miles of target -- and the eastern seaboard is out of gas: http://kaznak.web.infoseek.co.jp/big/colonialpipeline.jpg

Realistically, 9/11 affected a small number of people and the stock market. If the terrorists had taken out a significant portion of the energy infrastructure, America would have simply withered. In other words, the "terrorists" are just media junkies -- it's plain they don't actually want to hurt America at all because if they did, their targets would NOT be airplanes.

Anyway, our response to the "attack" was to attack ourselves, our freedoms, and unrelated countries. We chose to do nothing to actually enhance security, but we have managed to spend ridiculous sums of money and create huge annoyances for ourselves.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

well, nowadays they'd brand a person like that a terrorist.

Re:thieves standing around

[anagama]

Yeah -- flying airplanes into a couple buildings was a tragic event for those affected.

40-50,000 people per year die on the highways. As a result, shall we allow warrantless wiretapping? To we start wars? Do we abandon habeas? It would be really easy to reduce the death rate in all kind of annoying ways. We could shutdown freeways. Mandate all cars have breath test. Require rigorous testing of drivers. Forbid teenage driving.

My point was that terrorists are not "at war" with us -- if they were, they wouldn't pick such useless targets. Our knee jerk response has been ridiculous compared to the actual threat. We have run to the government to build up a police state all around us. Look at any police state ever -- they're all corrupt from the top levels with their bailouts, to the bottom levels with their hands in the luggage or a hand out for a small bribe.

Re:thieves standing around

[Anonymous Coward]

we could, but we *won't*..we won't throw these fucking tyrants out because, because people are fucking sheep. individuals can't do it, because they'll be arrested and/or shot in the process. we would have to have the whole fucking populace just up and storm the capital buildings, oppressive police districts, etc. i mean, all at fucking once -- and that's never going to happen.

What a pathetic lot US citizens must be. "Oh our government are evil tyrants wiping their asses with our beloved Constitution, taking away our rights, and stealing our precious money. But we can't do anything, because we'd need everybody in the country to act at once. Waah waaaah waaaah I want to kill myself."

What if Osama bin Laden had such a pathetic, cowardly attitude? He never would have started Al Qaeda all by himself and built it into a world-class terrorist organization entirely through his own efforts. Well the other terrorists helped him a bit of course. But Osama bin Laden didn't sit around saying "Well I have to get the entire population of Iraq and Afghanistan to attack the USA at the same time, or it'll never work." No, he got 19 Iraqis and Afghanis and attacked the USA! All by himself! An individual named Osama bin Laden did it.

Sure, the USA got mad at Osama bin Laden for doing that dreadful attack. Sure, they declared war on him, and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to find him and bring him to justice. But have you noticed? They never caught him. The mighty USA, supposedly the most powerful country in the world, the country that spends more on its military than all the other countries in the world, can't catch Osama bin Laden. The US DOD is spending trillions of dollars every year, and their task is to catch Osama bin Laden and chuck him in Gitmo, but they can't do it.

But apparently you drank the Cherry Flavored Government Kool Aid, and you believe that the US Government is all-powerful and can do what it says it will do. Guess what? They can't. It's over seven years now, and they still can't find that one person they said was their top priority. And guess what? If a few individuals start the American Revolutionary War Part II : Rambo Returns, the government will try very hard to stop those people. But the government certainly isn't guaranteed success. They couldn't catch Osama bin Laden, after all. They couldn't turn Afghanistan or Iraq into peaceful democracies, like they said they would.

The situation is looking pretty grim in the USA at the moment. Many people are realizing they've been swindled. They've seen the bank collapses and the house foreclosures. They've seen that their taxes will go to bailing out the fraudsters who swindled them out of their money and their houses. Many people are losing their jobs. If somebody comes up with a New Declaration Of Independence, and it catches hold of people's imaginations, the Government will be in serious trouble. What happens if large numbers of people stop paying tax? The Government won't be able to afford to pay for all those soldiers, cops, bombers, guns, etc. Obviously the Government wants you to think they can't be beaten. But look at their best efforts. There are still regular suicide bombings in Iraq. There are still people blowing up and shooting US soldiers. Iraq only has 20 million people. If the US Government can't control that lot, how are they going to control 300 million people in the USA?

Simple answer, they can't control the US population with military force. They don't have enough soldiers. Instead they control the US population by causing the people to be afraid, lazy, greedy, and uncertain. And apparently, it's working.

Re:thieves standing around

[dummondwhu]

Glad I'm not the only one that shares this opinion (and your others above).

Yes, 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. But an even larger tragedy is what we've slowly started to give up since then. The PATRIOT Act and Gitmo and these kinds of things should scare the living shit out of people, but they're seemingly oblivious. The death rate for those killed by terrorism in the United States falls somewhere between suicide by ball peen hammer and death resulting from paper cuts.

Yet, because the single tragedy is so spectacular, we say, "OK, we can live with fewer rights, to protect us from horrible terrorists." Drive the highways in NJ and you'll stop worrying about dying in a terrorist attack.

I'd love for someone to point out to me all the terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by the TSA at airports in the United States since 9/11. Because you know if it happened, it would be all over the news. They'd be shouting, "Look what we did!" Seems like it's more frequent to see some college student getting caught with a gun because he just wanted to prove how crappy security is.

As a conservative, it makes me shudder to think how many fellow conservatives fall in lockstep with this kind of thinking. When the Constitution is sufficiently covered with shit stains, we will be in serious trouble my friends.

Re:thieves standing around

[Antique Geekmeister]

Although the numbers of acts of terrorism, revolution, or whatever you want to call it have escalated incredibly. If you don't count them, you're ignoring more than 3000 US casualties, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. And that's not even counting Afghanistan, where the Taliban are back in force doing to us what they used to do to the Russians, and what their ancestors did to the British a hundred years ago.

The TSA, of course, does nothing or next to nothing about these fatalities.

Re:thieves standing around

[Duradin]

Why exactly would they want to *actually* catch OBL?

He was the new Red Menace. The commie pinko bastard that hides in your closet waiting for you to go to sleep so he can rape your dog, kill your kids and steal your wife.

The New Russian Empire is still building up steam and isn't scary enough yet to have Joe 'The Plumber' Sixpack duck and covering.

Now Joe Schmoe Revolutionary, he's actually a threat to them. The full weight of the government will be thrown against him, without prejudice or restraint.

Re:thieves standing around

[wisty]

Another issue is that the TSA agent was able to move all that shit without getting detected. Good thing he was taking cameras out, not putting bombs in, because the security was obviously pretty lax on the inside.

Re:thieves standing around

[atraintocry]

What's the hangup about airport searches? He mentioned wiretapping. He mentioned habeas corpus. He mentioned that silly little mix-up where we implicated Iraq in the 9/11 plot. I think you're trying to make the OP fit into the context of the article, when it was more of an off-topic rant about how we've let isolated events, one very large and yes tragic one in particular, become the rationale for causing ourselves even more long-term harm.

It's sort of tangential but I'm reminded of a David Cross quote:

I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he 'hated our freedom'. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia.

You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of six-year-olds?

Re:thieves standing around

[Lumpy]

Remember....

If they are against us, they are Insurgents and Terrorists.

If they are working for us they are Freedom fighters and heros.

The actions of both are identical , naming is simply relative to what side you are on.

If Afghanistan women were strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up enemy (to us) bases we all would be cheering on how they are so patriotic!

War in all it's forms is barbaric and evil. Anyone that denies that is also barbaric and evil.

Re:thieves standing around

[Shotgun]

Well said, ultranova.

The only thing I would add is that not a single gun needs to be touched to oust the current crop of Alpha Wolves. If the populace gave a damn about anything other than making sure that someone else pays for them to go to the doctor, all they have to do is pull lever C instead of A or B. They have to expend exactly ZERO energy beyond what they were already expending.

Sadly, most would rather waste their votes on A or B, deciding HOW all their rights and property will be taken, instead of whether or not it will be taken.

Re:thieves standing around

[aadvancedGIR]

"he got 19 Iraqis and Afghanis and attacked the USA"

I presume you mean that "fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon." (source Wikipedia)

flying sux

[pak9rabid]

And yet another reason why flying in the US sucks.

Re:flying sux

[Z00L00K]

Just curious - will they actually have the right to inspect your property (open your bags) without you being present if you look at it from the strict view of what the constitution says?

More specific the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course - X-raying wasn't on the list when that amendment was written, but that should be OK, but as soon as the property is to be opened I would like to first have a warrant and then also be able to contest that before any proceeding.

Has there ever been a court verdict saying that the fourth amendment isn't valid here?

Re:flying sux

[Beached]

But you forget. It is a voluntary search as you give them permission by boarding. They will say that you did not have to enter the boarding areas that are usually clearly marked.

Oops that still is the rule in Canada but in the US it is no longer the case http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/court-says-trav.html as you pretty much cannot enter the airport without automatically agreeing to be searched at any time.

Oh well, if you drive or take the bus or train you still have some rights that are upheld. But to get people to refuse to fly and hurt the airline industry in a way that makes them listen probably will not happen.

This still leaves private aircraft.

Re:flying sux

[LVSlushdat]

Its getting to be that if you want to fly somewhere, you FedEx your stuff to your destination, then report to the airport in your birthday suit...

Re:flying sux

[jlowery]

What are you smoking? A Miranda warning spells out your rights, then asks if you wish to waive them. How much more expicit does it need to get?

Re:flying sux

[JesseMcDonald]

The root problem is that the government claims for itself the power to determine who can and cannot operate aircraft. Similar to taxes and other regulations, you aren't really agreeing to the terms voluntarily when some third party forces every airline to require consent for searches.

To look at this from a different perspective, let's say a law is enacted which requires every merchant to extract an agreement to invasive home inspections before trade can commence. You have the option of not engaging in trade, so the searches are voluntary, right? (Of course not.) Forcing two willing individuals not to trade except on your terms is just as involuntary as forcing someone to buy or sell against their will.

Re:flying sux

[MiKM]

If you speak after being given your Miranda rights, you do not permanently give up your rights under the fifth amendment. That is, even if you say something potentially incriminating, you can then decide to keep quiet and still be protected by the fifth amendment.

Re:flying sux

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Miranda instructs you on how to preserve your right against self incrimination (shut up). It then warns you that if you decide to incriminate yourself (not shut up), or not seek further counsel on how not to self incriminate, then that's your problem. The constitution guarantees that you can't be forced to self incriminate. It leaves you the right to choose whether or not to do want to self incriminate. There's no prohibition in the constitution against self incrimination, only against the government forcing self incrimination. There's nothing about waiving your rights, temporarily or permanently, in Miranda, just that the gov't can't force you to talk (unless, of course, you're in GITMO and like to breath when you're hung upside down on a board).

Telling someone that they can still talk, and might incriminate themselves by doing so is as unrelated to the waiving of rights as choosing not to own a gun means that I waive my right to own one. I still have the right to own a gun, I do not (and will not) waive that right, but I chose not to exercise it.

I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not very interesting, and it hasn't helped your reading comprehension (of Miranda) either.

Re:flying sux

[dummondwhu]

You're not giving up any right. You're choosing to ignore the Fifth Amendment and talk of your own free will. They cannot compel you to say anything. The Fifth Amendment continues to protect you. The Miranda warning doesn't cause any right to be waived, it's just letting you know that if you say anything, then you're ignoring your own rights. That's why you can stop talking at any time, or choose to not say anything (the wise choice).

Once you've said something incriminating, you can't take it back and it will be used against you. That's the "waived" part. But your rights are wholly in tact.

And there you have it!

[AndGodSed]

You yanks are safe from terrorism!

Your own officers is a different matter though...

This is a TSA response to the seizure problem

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you have a chance of getting your stolen stuff back from ebay.

Who says government doesn't work?

Wow

[__aagctu1952]

I guess TSA Gangstaz (NSFW!) was actually a documentary then...

Re:Told to F-O

[ChromaticDragon]

Furthermore, I don't quite see why this is that terribly hard to handle properly. All the searches (yes ALL of them) should be videotaped and the videos held for a duration significantly long enough to permit any traveler to file a claim against any loss. This should be codified into law and rigorously enforced by independent oversight.

Why is this hard?

Yes, I realize the difficulties this would pose of documenting everything everyone is carrying. But this seems inevitable anyway given where we seem to be headed.

There needs to be a deep shift in perception away from the idea that the TSA polices us to the concept that they WORK FOR us. In the same vein, a transition is needed from the idea that we are all criminals to the idea that they are as well. Indeed, if the TSA has nothing to hide surely they wouldn't mind such oversight...

This increases safety and security by ... ?

[Brad Eleven]

I remember clearly the latter half of September 2001. Of course there were the plastic flags flying from almost every motor vehicle, but what stands out for me is the memory of how I kept scanning the horizon for explosions when I was driving.

I didn't feel safe. Not that I'd ever been safe, but my perception had always been so.

The thing that still puzzles me, though, is how we in the US have tolerated such a rapid erosion of civil liberty. It's not that our documented rights and freedoms haven't been violated all along, but now there are legal provisions--and already some legal precedent--to protect and justify such violations.

Sure, sure, human psychology, thinking with the fear centers of our brains, even the Milgram Experiment--these and more describe how we react to a perceived threat. And fear is known to reduce the blood supply to the brain.

I find it sad to consider that this particular finding will have no effect on the encroachment on human rights in these United States. I suppose this man is just one "bad apple." Like the cases of the prosecuted torturers at Abu Ghraib (and other locations), the years-later finding that the illegal and shocking techniques were known and even encouraged by the entire organization will have no effect on the policies which shall remain in place.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[gilgongo]

... the memory of how I kept scanning the horizon for explosions when I was driving.

Interesting. I'm British, and born when the "Troubles" started in Northern Ireland. I lived through a number of mainland bombings during that time, one of which I was very nearly injured by (the Bishopsgate bombing on 24 April 1993). The sound of the blast temporarily deafened me and a couple of people I knew were hospitalised. No 9/11 to be sure - but look at that photo.

After the bombing, I don't recall feeling unsafe in London. The English political reaction to the IRA was markedly different to the way the Americans reacted to 9/11 though. There was no security theatre - if anything rather the opposite. The mood was basically that if the bombings changed the way we lived, the IRA would be winning. So we just put up some road blocks in London and deployed armed police around sensitive areas. I would say that made ordinary English people feel pretty good about their safety. Politicians didn't talk about the IRA very much, and we all just lived our lives as normal.

You guys have had it tough I think. Not by the hands of terrorists as much as by the hands of your politicians.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[BlockedThreads]

I have also directly experienced an IRA attack when my office was destroyed in the 1996 South Quay bombing. Fortunately I was in the pub at the base of the office block at the time. The windows blew in but we were sheltered from the direct blast. The attack happened in a single moment. Then there was half an hour when everyone was running on pure adrenaline. Then there were the days and weeks of discussing the moment and its aftermath in minute detail. I don't know anyone who experienced it who felt fear at the time or afterwards.

In contrast, the aftermath of the 7/7 attack, which I did not experience directly, was far more stressful for me. Over the next week I was very stressed when using the tube. There would actually be beads of sweat on my face.

I found the difference in my response rather surprising. There could be a number of reasons:

• I was ten years older - and more aware of my mortality.
• The 'war-on-terror' (TM) had influenced the way the events were reported by the media.
• I had directly experienced the first event and not the second.
• Explosions in tunnels scare me more than explosions above ground.

Personally I think that terrorism is far more frightening for the detached observer. For those involved it is really no different to any other kind of tragedy such as a serious car accident - something that happens to people all the time. Suddenly something bad happens. Hopefully you get through it and then you get on with your life.

Now, there's an interesting statistic...

[Anonymous Coward]

"She [Unselding] also said that his crimes were rare and that less than 300 TSA employees have been terminated for theft.

"The actions of a few individuals in no way reflect on the outstanding job our more than 43,000 security officers do every day to ensure the security of the traveling public," she said. "

What an interesting statistic. 300/43000 = 0.7%. So, catching 0.7% of their employees stealing isn't significant? And those are only the ones caught. And yet we hear all the time on /. about the next expensive and probably worthless scheme to screen terrorists is okay even if it yields a percent or two of false positives along the way??

It's pretty pathetic if they can't even trust their own staff to the tune of 0.7%. Maybe they should improve their security.

Re:I don't understand...

[pak9rabid]

...why the TSA is allowed to open up packages without the presence of the owner of said packages. If they were forced to page the owner to come back and observe the TSA performing a screening on the contents, that would cut down a lot on the opportunity for this type of theft to occur. If the owner doesn't respond to the page from the TSA, then the package simply is not allowed onboard is a fair policy I think. Also, make sure that the TSA personnel are required to fill out paperwork for every package they page the owners for will cut down on abuse of powers as well.

That's some good thinkin you got there....almost a little too good. You're a witc...er terrorist!

Hey! That's my MacBook

[microcars]

in the AP Photo!

but I am comforted to learn from the article that:

"...less than 300 TSA employees have been terminated for theft."

I read that as
"CLOSE TO THREE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FOR THEFT!"

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[Anonymous Coward]

"CLOSE TO THREE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FOR THEFT!"

Agreed, especially when you consider these employees supposedly passed security and background checks themselves before they were hired. Just shows the screens of the screeners are ineffective, not to mention, it seems to clearly indicate (or not, since after all, if you get caught and are punished, the point is not to do it again) good backgrounds don't show anything about future criminal activity.

Government types frequently like to say that for every X criminal, X*Y where Y > 1 by a good margin is NOT caught, or is doing some other crime. Take their word for it--how many other things are going on that aren't caught?

Police or police types acting like criminals to watch and protect the citizenry--what a standard, typical thing to read about these days.

The best part...

[Shados]

The best part of the article is near the end. Something along the line of "Don't worrie, crimes like these are REALLY rare. Only about 300 TSA employees have ever been fired for theft".

300 employees fired for theft. If you read the article (i know, i know...) the only reason this guy got caught was because he's a retard (putting his return address on the stuff he sells, always using the same name on ebay, etc). So if 300 were caught, there's probably several times that many. Then you add that the TSA has like 40-45 thousand employees... and that adds up to 2/3rd of a percent of their total workforce (of course, the 300 figure is over time, but its still interesting to put the numbers in perspective).

Thats just insane. It takes only one person to steal enough to really ruins some people's days. And here you have -hundreds- (just the ones that were caught!!!). I'll suffer through GreyHound busses, thank you.

Re:I buy cheap luggage

[Richard_at_work]

A friend of mine Fedex's his from location to location - no need to check stuff in, pick it up after the flight, no hassles and all of the hotels he stays in are willing to cooperate when he explains what hes doing. He carries an overnight kit in his carry-on, just in case. Costs him a little more, but not so much that hes considering stopping.

Good thing this is the good ol USA, where victims

[electrogeist]

where victims of theft get 600-26000 times the actual damages these days. Right?

Oh wait, this is real hard property...

She also said that his crimes were rare and that less than 300 TSA employees have been terminated for theft.

That is not exactly an encouraging number.

Re:Told to F-O

[SupremoMan]

This kind of level of thoughtfulness would require competence. But maybe if we make enough noise they will agree to this, if only as an excuse to raise their budgets.

Homeland security....

[3seas]

... sorry but this shit just ain't acceptable.

Its another of a long and growing list of government abuses that are easily amounting to be worse than the terrorism its supposed to be protecting us from.

"Those who sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, will have neither."

who said that?

This is what happens

[kilodelta]

When you pay people roughly minimum wage to run security.

You don't exactly get the best people and you get the opportunity for theft.

That said, my electronics NEVER get checked. They go through the x-ray machine where I can keep a fairly good eye on them.

Look at the numbers!

[JambisJubilee]

From TFA:

465 transportation security officers have been terminated for theft since May 1, 2003

Does anyone find this a little extreme? That's a little over one firing for theft every 4 days!

Makes one wonder...

Re:Look at the numbers!

[WTF Chuck]

Not the total number of employees, but the number of employees that have access to checked baggage. I don't care about adding the office/admin types to the tally to make the problem seem less than it actually is. Another interesting number would be how many airports have had TSA goons fired for theft.

TSA

[Registered Coward v2]

Taking Stuff from Airtravelers

Oh the irony

[xRelisH]

Quoting the TSA:
The actions of a few individuals in no way reflect on the outstanding job our more than 43,000 security officers do every day to ensure the security of the traveling public," she said.

I'm of South Asian ethnicity and have a few Middle Eastern friends. We're all used to getting the secondary protocol at the airport due to our last names. Funny how they say a few bad TSA employees shouldn't reflect upon the other employees, yet they treat anyone with a brown shade of skin as a criminal.

The real moral of the story

[ilsa]

But this summer, Brown got too ambitious for his own good, allegedly stealing a $47,900 camera from an HBO crew and a camcorder from a CNN employee, authorities said.

Steal from Joe Sixpack and Lizzy Hockeymom all you want. But don't screw with corporate media!

Re:I buy cheap luggage

[WTF Chuck]

With all the new baggage fees and such that the airlines are starting to charge, this is likely to become cheaper than checking your baggage anyway.

Re:Tip of the iceberg?

[Gewalt]

Why is there any doubt in your mind that the value is less than 100%?

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[drawfour]

So you can lock your luggage. They will either:

1. Cut the lock off
2. Open the lock because they have a key

In both cases, the result is the luggage is now open and they can steal any property they wish.

Previously, when we could lock the luggage and it would REMAIN locked, we could be assured our stuff would not be stolen. We no longer have that assurance, whether we lock our luggage or not. That's the point the GPP was making...

Re:Hey has anyone...

[Henneshoe]

More like "Whose watches do the watchers get?"

Re:$200K

[SL Baur]

The place has really gone downhill since the median age here dropped by half a couple years ago.

Not particularly. I've been off and on myself, but the popular perception of any online forum is one of which rose-colored glasses are involved. I do not see any substantial change in "quality" since when I started. Actually as I've refined my BS filter, the quality of today's Slashdot is pretty good.

I follow the Timothy May principle - if an online forum (or mailing list) does not have the quality you wish, contribute more.

(I do not get the reference either, but perhaps that's because I do not watch TV and I've been outside the US a long time).

It's much simpler than that...

[Joce640k]

Why is any TSA employee allowed to leave the baggage area with a laptop under his arm?

Search the employees on the way out, problem solved.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[toddestan]

I wouldn't consider that unusual at all. If I can get to somewhere by car in 8 hours, I'm not even going to consider flying. I'm not going to save any time or money by flying, and the amount of hassle and stress is far lower.

Not sheep

[Shivetya]

Simply paid off. The majority lives off the minority who pays the bulk of the taxes. Income redistribution makes for some very lazy and apathetic people. There is nothing about fairness in a progressive tax, it is all about control.

I was in NYC,

[Chmcginn]

and some of my relatives & friends were killed.

Fuck you for using them to push your police-state agenda.

Re:What about "consumables"?

[CrazyTalk]

Dude, you are lucky that you (sorry, your "friend") are not currently spending time in a Turkish prison.