Slashdot Mirror
US House 'Creator' of TSA Wants To Kill It
U.S. Representative John Mica (R-Florida), the sponsor of the original House bill that helped create the TSA, has become an outspoken opponent of the agency. In a recent interview, "Mica said screeners should be privatized and the agency dismantled." Mica seems to agree with other TSA critics that the agency 'failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.' Mica is the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman and receives classified briefings on TSA. Perhaps we should trust him more than most people on this topic.
In an older ABC news article (ignore the unrelated video) Mica describes how he deals with security checkpoints. "He won't go through a full body scanner at an airport because 'I don't want them circulating pictures of my beautiful body' all over. He said he opts for a pat-down, and just 'closes his eyes and imagines a beautiful female.'"
TSIA
But that headline is horribly written. It took me a few tries to properly parse it and understand what it was saying.
...to replace it with privatized equivalents.
Not really better is it?
Just what we want, to pay more for less security.
It was a bad idea from the word go.
No one here gets out alive
USA is on MY no-fly list.
replace them with private entities with LESS oversight.... yeah.... I'll be damned if i go through a colonoscopy to board a plane.
The TSA is a bureaucratic monster that has grown to big to dismantle (or indeed, even control anymore). It's already starting to branch out into areas that are far beyond its mandate, all in the name of "security", of course. We'll always have that little bogeyman.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
These government officials always must be the first to get anything that they prescribe as treatment to other people done to themselves first.
You want to pass a TSA type act? For a year you should be the only one, to who these treatments are applied. You should be forced to these treatments on daily basis, and if after a year you think it's still a good idea, then maybe... you should still forget about it and think how to increase individual liberties instead of destroying them, and how to uphold and protect the Constitution, as you swore.
Also if you break the oath of protecting the Constitution, all of the ways in which you broke it should be applied to you on mandatory daily basis for 50 years.
You can't handle the truth.
It would be a good start for the kinds of cuts necessary for the bloated federal budget. Next do the BATFE, DEA, IRS and DOD.
TSA - It is because of us nothing got into the country in 10 years.
Skeptic - You dint do crap for 10 years.
Perhaps we should first ask, does Mica own stock or part of any private security firms?
"Failure to detect threats" does not necessarily mean the program is a total waste of money, because of the deterrent effect on terrorists who would be risking human assets to sneak by the airport checkpoints.
This guy is spouting Republican talking points, saying the program is "creating too much bureaucracy" and "being wasteful government spending". Notice he doesn't actually care about the loss of privacy and rights. If he could contract a private company to strip search everyone and save money on the budget, he'd probably do it. Heck he might even be able to spin it off as "helping the job creators." Just because someone agrees with you an issue doesn't mean he agrees with you for the same reasons nor that you'd like the solutions he'd propose.
Monsters, once created, seldom die easy.
Really? Hey maybe he is right but over all I find the application of logic in the editorialization of Slashdot submissions to be lacking at best.
"Mica is the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman and receives classified briefings on TSA. Perhaps we should trust him more than most people on this topic."
And if he as all for keeping the TSA would you also say you should trust him more because of his insider info? I doubt it, I am sure that we would hear screams of "who is paying him off" or the Republicans want to take away your freedoms even more and so on.
It is a dangerous thing when the test for trust is being told what you want to hear. It is an even more dangerous thing when you are sure that isn't happening.
Actually I do think that this is a good thing. The restrictions are too great, as is the innocence. The attacks that have been stopped have been stopped by people on the plane and good intelligence work.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
... why the Senate would get rid of a nice family oriented group such as the Transsexuals of America.
...he's doing himself a favor with the Tea Party by going after an unpopular agency (not to mention Federal workers).
Finding God in a Dog
There's evidence that government services provided by private contractors can cost twice as much as the same services, provided by full-time federal employees --- all while doing everything even less efficiently than before. (...Just like it is with private prisons, private war contractors, private health insurance, and many other scams.)
This whole scheme seems like just another RepubliScam(TM), meant to divert taxpayer cash into the pockets of Republican political benefactors.
Hire only attractive female screeners, two drink minimum.
Turn this around into a profit center. As a bonus, flyers are less stressed. winning all around.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I actually support a republican "privatization will fix it" argument for the first time in history. I suppose the TSA is just so bad that it eclipses all the other governmental bullshit.
I just really have a hard time imagining that private firms would be worse; they're already rent-a-cops, but as it is they're government rent-a-cops. Any oversight at all, even if it is just the fictitious "free market" oversight, is an improvement over an organization that actively works against any sort of oversight.
Great Intellect...
It's kind of ignorant to use Poland as an example of expensive security administrations. Security at Polish airports is handled by the same mix of military, police, and private security as in most European airports and stations. It's nothing like the TSA.
When a politician takes a position, any position, the main key to understanding why is "follow the money". In this case, I'd assume, even without research, that the TSA budget represents a huge and lucrative pot of money and certain people think they can grab that pot and run with it. Perhaps Mica didn't get the payoff he was expecting. There'll be some hand waving about "rights" but really the goal is just to take control of the budgets, blow them up even larger, and slice off 10-20% into personal accounts in various tax havens.
The only solution to security theatre is competition, whereby airports pay their own security costs, and charge passengers directly, and passengers then choose whether to travel via low-cost insecure airports, or more expensive airports with more people to frisk and search. This is how it works in European transport, and it pretty much keeps things sane.
My blog
I hate the TSA in airports, trains, and buses. But you have to admit that it created jobs. What else can all those people do? Pull weeds?
Now, if our society was organized a little differently, then not everyone would need to establish financial value to be able to gain food and shelter. Why does everyone have to work all the time?
Sounds like he's trying to score points with tea baggers more than frustrated travelers. It was a great idea 10 years ago because he was saving the country, now we're anti-big government so he wants it gone
This is the same Mica that shut down the FAA outright a few weeks back.
Replace them with private entities, but if the TSA will be dismantled, scanners won't be used in airports since it has been proven ineffective. Nobody's been held liable for the cancer-causing scanners with current oversight anyway so what more could you be afraid of? At least if they're privatized, those companies will be held liable and could collapse if they make errors. Right now it's like there's no consequence...
Twinstiq, game news
My brother-in-law says just don't let brown people fly. On a serious note, don't forget the 9/11 hijackers used no guns or bombs.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
It'd be the least expensive colonoscopy you could ever possibly find in the US!
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Well if it's privatized, then maybe they'll do things more like Israel. I don't know much beyond anecdotes (on here) about their screening process, but I gather it's a simple and short Q&A where they profile you and search if needed. I hear it's more efficient and without the groping. I'm assuming they have a higher incident of people wanting to blow up planes over there that the US does, but I could be wrong.
This could be a good thing. Now if they are given the same powers to abuse that the current TSA has, then nothing will change. Hopefully a private company will pay their workers more and have incentive to streamline things to maximize their profits.
This will probably hurt the economy more due to putting people out of work. The TSA is a jobs program as well as a theater performance. I doubt many of them would be hired by private firms, as they can weed out the good ones, pay them more, and streamline the process to do it with fewer people.
Instead of trusting the guy that originally worked to create the monstrocity, how about we trust the guy that fought against it originally? We had one outspoken guy in government saying we do not need to give up freedoms for temporary safety the day after 9/11..
Rep John Mica says 'I helped create it. It sucks. We should privatize it.'
Rep Ron Paul says 'I voted against it. It sucks. We should get rid of it.'
I believe the new cockpit doors did more to combat terrorism than all of the air marshalls and TSA screeners combined.. and the doors did not do much.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Would be hard to pay more ... than we currently do.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
OCP?
Fandroids hate facts.
They aren't at zero - they are negative. You have to count the false detections against them as well. Their mistakes have had lasting impacts on their poor victims.
If the TSA gets dismantled all of the rules that the TSA created need to go away too. If not, then there really isn't a point.
I often fly just so I can show off my heavenly body to the woman behind the scanner machine screen. I can tell by the way she looks at me that she is impressed.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
it seems like you should know that it's a lot easier to create a huge government bureaucracy than it is to dismantle one...
I've got it. It works, I swear.
Do you see any snuffleupaguses around here?
Thought not!
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
part of the republican move to dismantle the government. NO more, no less.
How many terrorist or bombs got past TSA?
While the TSA has some problems, one should consider that:
A) You have recourse. Far more recourse then you do against a private security agency.
b) Going to the private sector for jobs like those result in higher costs.
You want to get rid of a section of government, start with Homeland security.
News flash; there are something the government does extremely well. Have a common practice the crosses several corporation and private citizens is on of those areas.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Most people are both stupid and cowardly. This, however, does not stop them from voting.
Security screening should be devolved to the local level.
There is very little to gain from having a nation-wide "screening organisation". The procedures and techniques used are simple and don't need to spring from some central source, it can be very easily learnt and done locally. Any increase in efficiency from having the procedures written centrally is marginal at best. Not to mention that bureaucracy loves nothing more than 'special cases'. Rulemakers hear that some guy in Nebraska wanted to go on an aircraft with a colostomy bag that wasn't obviously empty? Suddenly the rulebook must be rewritten to handle those cases and everyone must memorize the new rules. That is inefficient and wasteful when most screeners don't need to know those rules and can handle it on the fly.
It could even arguably make screeners work better. Who is likely to care more about their job in the ways that matter as a screener - someone who has grown up in the town he works as a security screener at, and who has an open door to the head of security at the airport whom he knows personally? Or someone who is employed at a federal level, assigned to cover an airport and is discouraged from interacting with "outside staff"?
Everything known about screeners indicate that the most important characteristics are empathy and applied wits rather than following an extremely detailed manual of fixed processes. Screeners that are recruited locally and report locally are more likely to have these.
Privatisation could also help, if not then make the screeners part of the local town budget.
Isn't it interesting that the very people who were spending money like drunken sailors are suddenly in favor of "smaller government" and financial conservatism? And yet almost no one is calling them on it. An entire political party apparently had an epiphany and started claiming that Obama was outspending every President in history (while Bush Jr. - all by himself - increased the national debt by over $5 trillion according to the NY Times).
I keep wondering how firing a million government employees is going to help create jobs.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Seriously? What criteria would they compete on?
The goal obviously isn't to catch terrorists, so it can't be that. Maybe it's just "who fucks you over the cheapest?"... but then we could just get rid of the TSA (or any corporate TSA-like entities.)
HAND.
This is political hackery that boils down to the following:
#1) The job will be bid on via a no-bid contract to some firm that some senator is either friends with the owner or a part-owner thereof.
#2) All the current TSA employees will be fired.
#3) All the former TSA employees will be rehired by the private firm (such as Blackwater), at LOWER pay.
#4) Despite hiring everyone at lower pay, the contractor will bill the government double or more what it was costing the government to run the TSA by itself.
#5) Owner and Senator become super-rich, and lobby hard to have their personal income taxes cut because they are Job-creators.
#6) Deficit explodes due to cost-over-runs and how much money is being pocketed by owner/senator. Meanwhile Congress votes to cut taxes on the rich to "reduce" the deficit.
Is there any part of this I haven't covered? It's pretty obvious, and they've done it to us a million times and we let them do it more. The Rich get richer and the middle class becomes poor.
Thanks government for fucking me in the ass again.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Traditional economic 'theory' assumes that people act as entirely rational selfish entities. Unfortunately that isn't how people actually work.
HAND.
Somebody just made the no fly list!
Regards, The Stupid Agency
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Your monster is running amok.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
the dog, meanwhile, is too tired & skinny (hard times) to even bother wanting the (excessively burdensome demanding dangerous) tail anymore.
saw it in a movie. we can expect the 'old shoe' to drop in on us any day now? not that we couldn't use a genuine hero or 2?
was that gw bush (descendant of inbred royalty) that got uninvited to peddle his wares in canada, our neighbor & ally?
disarm. for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way.....
The only positive sides to privitisation are that now when you get felt up, it's much easier to sue the ever-loving crap out of a private company. They'll still claim that they're acting *on behalf* of the government, but that layer of abstraction will give some legal wiggle room. In addition, the next time a wanna-be underwear bomber or loony with a knife disrupts a flight, said private company can then be sued by the passengers, the airline and the federal government for failing to do their jobs.
Even better, you could probably sue them for making you miss a flight, sue them for cracking your laptop screen, for exposing you to super ultra harmful cancer death rays, for racial profiling, embarrassing you by choosing you for selective screening, etc. etc. I bet the lawyers are just salivating at the thought of privatized airport security.
Maybe in the long run, their insurance rates will skyrocket to the point that, instead of security theater, we get some decent common sense security measures. A boy can dream, right? I guess that's the new means of eliminating failure in the world. We end up doings things the right way not because it's cheaper, but because we do the wrong thing half-assed until it gets too expensive, then we start drifting towards the right way.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Actually, if we had the guts as a nation we could fix our deficit within five years if we uh... "embraced" the Adult Industry. But our Puritan heritage will take us to the grave instead.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
"Mica seems to agree with other TSA critics that the agency 'failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years."
Not that I am a big fan of the TSA but one thing should be pointed out. Failure to detect a threat does not mean if was unsuccessful at finding a threat. There might not have been any credible threats to find. There is a problem in failing many tests of security and he should have pointed at that instead.
I'm really trying to remember the last time I thought a rent-a-cop was doing a better job than the local city police or deputy sheriff. Nope, hasn't happened yet. Do you folks not remember how screwed up this was before TSA was set up? It was horrid, which is why all these people supported setting up TSA in the first place.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
"By entering this metal detector, you have agreed to the EULA of this airport's security measures, including the clause that all disputes with this security checkpoint will be resolved through binding arbitration..."
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
What about the 9/11 hijackers? It was private screeners that let them on the planes.
I think even Stevie Wonder can see its only a matter of time before the TSA looses a groping lawsuit. Once they do that the flood gates will open and it will cost 100's of millions.
It's going to be a lot easier for a private company to take the beatings and the bad press in the long run. Sadly all this will really do is pass the buck for bad practices and bad regulations.
It costs the government more to outsource than to do it internally, so if the TSA isn't doing anything, let's kill it instead of pay private contractors more to do nothing.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/09/contracting-out-costs-the-government-lots-extra.html
'failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.'
True story, bro: I once traveled with one of those oversized novelty Bic lighters (fully filled with lighter fluid) I bought as a gift for a friend who smokes. I had a medium sized black luggage back with a HUGE RED pocket on the back. I put the lighter in the huge red pocket thinking "well, if they take it, they take it...no big loss." TSA ran my bag through the Xray 3 times, manually searched the bag 3 times, and not once, did the moron doing the searches ever turn the bag over and open the HUGE RED pocket on the back. Eventually, the guy gave up and said something like "we can't find the thing that looks dangerous, but it's probably okay." I boarded the plane with that big lighter and all that lighter fluid, feeling ever safer under the oh-so-watchful eye of TSA.
So damn right, they've failed to detect any threat. They couldn't even find the non-threat I had (in the most obvious of places) after they detected it as a threat and let me board with it anyway. Total incompetence, total waste of resources.
Prior to 9/11 airport security was private. Now yes, people did hijack the planes but then two things to remember:
1) Box cutters weren't something security was looking for.
2) The TSA has done no better, they miss shit all the time. Their record is awful.
Also a big benefit of private security is accountability. The TSA has done a wonderful job of creating a system where nobody is accountable and any complaint just gets stopped up in bureaucracy, and gets you placed on the no-fly list. Well in the case of private security, they are accountable to the airport authority. The AA cares what people think, and particularly cares what airlines think. So if security causes problems, the airport authority will yank their chain, or fire them.
I'd suggest that privatizing (i.e. reverting back to the way things were pre-9/11) would be a step in the right direction. The TSA just oozes a feeling of wasteful spending.
Private security contract firms would be subjected to reviews by the check-writers more frequently and while it would still be a mandatory budgeted item it would be under that local scope so I would still imagine more fiscally responsible spending would be present.
2c
Yes, until the discrimination suit emboldens all of the worlds big handed uglies to go apply at the local airport.
Interesting. If they follow his recommendations the TSA may become the first privatized secret police force in history.
Proverbs 21:19
Ineptitude aside, you can't find something that was never there.
Living in the LA area, I have a choice of LAX, ONT, BUR, LGB, and SNA all in driving distance, if LAX hires TSA clones, and Burbank hires someone better, then atleast I have choice, today. My choices are TSA security smurf, or no flights. Also what immunity does the TSA have if they hire pedobear, I imagine, a private company would get ripped to shreds in lawsuits.
Seriously, small business gets away w this all the time, even chain bars like hooters (more past than present). I've always wondered what kind of "men" sign up for TSA positions. I stop wondering because i quickly realize I DONT WANT TO KNOW.
Still... I somehow can't help feel like it's my natural right not to get groped, but if somebody's gotta do it, I agree with OP of the sub thread.
Perhaps we should trust him more than most people on this topic
Perhaps we should fire the incompetent son of a bitch instead.
I haven't set foot in the U.S. for ten years, and I'm not going to ever again until they get their fucking house in order and stop treating tourists like criminals.
Come to Canada instead! We welcome visitors
Would this mean that we'll get rid of the stupid '9/11 Security Fee'?
Sounds like a happy ending to me.
We have all know it was security theater from day one. It was much more about the perception of security than actual security. I am sorry to say it, but what we needed to do is what the majority of the middle east has done in terms of airport and public space security. It has been fairly well proven effective and not unduly intrusive or burdensome. But profiling is just seen as too much of a PR and PC disaster to do it in the USA. That is part of the approaches used in those countries. You give scrutiny to the people who are most likely to be the threat, not the 4 year old child who is screamming at the top of their lungs "BAD TOUCH!!!!!" "BAD TOUCH, DADDY!!!!!!"
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Do you know the one about the three bowls of porridge?
..the terrorists fly in from Paris (Richard Reid, aka shoe bomber) or Amsterdam (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka underwear bomber), where there is no TSA, no groping, no naked scanners, etc.
When you seriously think about it, the TSA is rather pointless. They can't stop terrorists from flying into the US because they only exist at US airports. They can only stop terrorists who are already inside the US and trying to get on a plane. Problem is...they're already inside the US. At that point, they can pull a Nidal Hassan or a Faisal Shahzad.
:(){
What about attractive guys for the ladies and gay men? :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I think your sig should read: "Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but will still be weaker than individuals."
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Screw that noise, they should just scan your checked bags, make you walk through a metal detector and scan your bag as quickly as possible, then let people who have concealed weapons permits carry a knife on the plane. Not a gun, to much chance of causing decompression, just a knife. Then lock the plane's cockpit so that the plane can't be flown by a would be hijacker. And boom you will end up with a bunch of middle American gun nuts with knives on the plane, good luck trying to break down the door to the cockpit, I give a hijackers ten minutes before the majority of the passengers subdue them.
My guess is this joker just bought stock in Halliburton or a competitor.
That sig has bothered me for a long time. It reveals such a blindness on the part of whoever first said it... the unchallenged assumption that government has to be more powerful than the individual.
Who would determine if they are doing a good enough job? A private company will do whatever it takes to maximize profit, not maximize our security. I can see it now, one worker manning an entire airport security with Diebold equipment everywhere.
If there is corruption, and wasteful spending in TSA, then fix it; rebuild it. Just don't sell it out to the lowest bidder. I trust the government more than most private companies.
Hire the Israelis to do security RIGHT. Run it like they do on El Al.
You'll have the drunken rightwing retards from the Republican party begging for the TSA back in no time.
The Red Scare of 2000... communists caught: 0
If a crazy wants to strap a bomb to their chest and explode in your local favorite district, they will, and generally you never know before hand, so there is nothing you can do to stop them... that's what makes it so scary.
I somehow can't help feel like it's my natural right not to get groped
It may be; unfortunately, flying isn't.
Dilbert RSS feed
I am no fan of the TSA however I do remember the massive outcry for the "gubmint to do more to secure the american people" after 911. So if we get rid of the TSA and we hire Joe the plumber to do airport security or just leave it up to the airlines them maybe if we get another terrorist attack the people will shut up and not bitch about lax security. You been screeming for more security now you get it and now you bitch about it. I remember that security was up to the airlines right up untill terrorists killed 3000 people. So lets put security back into the hands of the airlines and shut up about wanting perfect security.
In the news today, Republican Congressman John Mica was taken into custody by Daytona Beach police officers, after allegedly soliciting a male undercover police officer operating as part of a sting operation targeting prostitution. Daytona chief of police Mike Chitwood had this to say, "At this time, we have charged Congressman Mica with soliciting a prostitute, and other charges may be pending analysis of several packets of unidentified substances found on his person, which we suspect to be illegal drugs."
[End Of Line]
The standard libertarian assumption is that government stands in the way of the free market, and that if the government would just get out of the way, then the market would flourish and make all the right decisions. It is an argument that the government should be drownable in a bathtub in order to make a better system. When you ask a libertarian what recourse someone would have in this system if they are abused by a private business, they say they such businesses that abuse their customers will eventually die out. People will stop patronizing businesses that do wrong, or customers will band together to form boycotts.
Thus the idea that business will be stronger than government but weaker than individuals - though granted, weaker than individuals acting deliberately or otherwise in tandem. What's wrong about that? How does that not represent the libertarian ideal? After all, if government would just get out of the way, then things would be better, right? Individuals don't need the government to deal with large businesses that harm them, right?
"the unchallenged assumption that government has to be more powerful than the individual." My ideal system is one in which the individual, the government, and private businesses all have checks on each other of about equal power. Say, for example, when many individuals are wronged by a company in a small amount, they should have the right to file class action claims to settle those disputes. In the realm in which a large employer does wrong with its employees, those employees should be able to unionize to represent their interests. If a government does wrong with its constituents, there should be sunshine policies to ensure that the public knows what's going on so that they can make informed decisions at the voting booth. I don't see how my sig has anything against that.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
why would you add a middleman?
Its rather difficult to hold the TSA accountable for anything. Private firms can and do regularly - get sued. There has to my knowledge been zero lawsuits against the TSA.
In regards to the excessively expensive private "firms" working in iraq. They do so because they have been contracted to do things not legal for actual soldiers. Let that sink in a minute.
The TSA basically operates the same way. They do things not legal for a police office. They do things not legal for a security guard. They do things not legal for a private screener. Its as a if the TSA was a private firm with no accountability spending someone elses money.
A private firm spending its own money is going to have either submit itemized billing or pay for excessive expenses out of pocket. This keeps things reasonably trim. When the legality of their actions is actually a consideration suddenly the screeners will behave themselves. And if contract lengths and contract termination clauses are reasonable - screening companies police their own employees to remove bad seeds before lawsuits occur and airport costs stay low and fee's to travelers stop increasing(no way they will decrease but at least they'll stop going up.)
I'm not seeing a down side to no more TSA. Almost all of the decent inteligent hardworking TSA will easily find employment in the private industry.
And that's wrong too - flying, like driving, shouldn't be a privilege in the modern era.
I had one screener temporarily blind himself with my high-powered external camera flash. He wanted to know how to test it, so I showed him the button to push. Didn't expect him to stare right into it while testing. Was kind of funny, actually.
The following thing will happen: A new privatised organisation will have it's start-up. It will hire all the people with big incomes from the TSA. Service will be as crappy as always, but it will cost a lot more than it does now. That's all there is to it.
Privacy is terrorism.
Who would cower in the presence of sandmen wielding utility-knives? Certainly not Crocodile Dundee in New York City.
I had a collision with a deer that almost killed me last week. The chances of being killed by a deer collision are much larger than the chances of being killed by a terrorist. Do you know that deers where extinct in most of the US at some point, and that there is an active program to populate deers intentionally ? I'd rather have all deers exterminated from this world than have a strip search, that is more efficient to ensure my safety, and does not violate my body.
You do realize you can fly with lighters. I do all the time.
the unchallenged assumption that government has to be more powerful than the individual.
That assumption is inherent in any definition of government. If the individual is more powerful, it means that government cannot enforce its laws on that individual - including laws protecting property, and laws against theft or murder. At that point, the individual is no longer a subject to that government in any way - not a citizen.
The government *should* be the cumulative will of its people. In that case, it obviously has to be more powerful than the individual. One person's desires shouldn't trump everyone else.
Unless, of course, you think that any random idiot should be able to stake a claim to any land anywhere they want, for instance. Oh, but that's one of the few things that libertarians agree a government *can* do -- enforce their property rights. How can a government enforce property rights if it has less power than individuals?
No, that's not just an unchallenged assumption; it's almost the very *definition* of government. If (all) individuals have more power than the government, what's its purpose? That's just anarchy.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Get rid of TSA completely, have airlines take care of this privately WITHOUT any government money involved.
Whatever the rules that are set by the private airlines go - you are allowed to take whatever you want with you (including guns, bombs and gasoline) on my preferred airline, named: Take a Chance.
You can't handle the truth.
As much as I appreciate the thought of drunk female screeners handling my package, I believe this gentleman's proposal has more going for it, namely bears.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Washington Post wrote about this last December: http://tinyurl.com/3x8wdnw) . AmericasBlog noted a major campaign contributor is likely responsible for the change of heart: http://tinyurl.com/2dqyzjx
A man, a plan, a canal: went overbudget and held back by red tape.
Privatization of TSA would allow private companies to put monetary value on searching. There would be fees associated with getting groped. (pay to get groped). The more you pay (First Class), the less you get touched. Economy class would get abused. Similar to Phone companies who publishes you landline phone number then asked you to pay not to have it published, instead of vice-versa.
On one side, I hate the TSA and on first glance, their elimination and the privatization of the system is likely one of the only forms of privatization I'd be for.
On the other hand, because I hate them so much, I can't help but wonder if it is best that way. However misguided we may find their efforts, they do what they feel they must do to keep everyone safe.
An airport or airline has an incentive to not. If they piss off their customers too much, the customer may opt for another airline or for some, even another airport. A difficult customer then, might get a little less screening. Get a few people with less than ideal intentions becoming regular problem customers and the chances of their being screened effectively will drop like a freaking rock.
The TSA on the other hand doesn't give a crap. At the moment there is no other option. It is their way or [quite literally] the highway. There is value to that, and we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss it.
Using planes as weapons only works once. In fact it didn't even entirely succeed as the plane that was downed by the passengers proves. Any future attempt would be foiled by passengers, on board air marshals, or by locked/reinforced cockpit doors.
So just drop the BS screenings and get back to having our personal liberties and rights to not be exposed to unreasonably searches.
Use some of that money for intelligent solutions. If you're spending money on airport screening, you've already missed the point. It's like defending at point blank range, you need to get the bad guys before they are trying to execute their plan. No matter how hard you try, there will be gaps in the system that will be exploited due to real world and the human factor. The bad guys won't come through the obvious front door where all the security is.
Kill it and save the money for making new jobs and improving the standard of living for those that hate us. If anything human beings are lazy and if you give them enough luxury, they will just sit around on the couch and complain rather than actually taking action :P
Its a jobs program. Who cares if it actually does any real work. It creates a theatrical security environment at airports and produces a cadre of security experts with careers that can translate into consulting work overseas at foreign airports. TSA is a laboratory for testing security theories and scenarios. Where else, for example, are facial recognition systems/programs going to get that real world testing ground?
Its like how the US government subsidized the railroads in the 19th century. Its not like anybody ever really needed or wanted to take a train to North Dakota. BUT once you have build tens of thousands of miles of tracks, then you have a whole economy of engineers, train experts, metal workers, etc etc and all of that expertise can be exported for profit. Our great export in 20 years will be security technology and experts. Makes perfect sense to me.
It amazes me that so many advocates of profitization of government services still don't understand that they create corporate monopolies that are just as bad as the government, but without accountability to a public which has about as much choice to patronize them as they do whether to submit to the government agencies they replace.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
In the Washington DC metro area, there are three major airports within a 50 mile radius (Reagan National, Dulles, BWI), and if they were allowed to compete on sanity in screening procedures, they would.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Why is that? The Israelis seem to do it quite well and there would be nothing that would single right wing retards or even brilliant republicans out over the rest of the population.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
with congress, in particular, all these asshats that sit in congress for so long? one shouldn't have to learn the ins-and-outs, as one should know how to do the job before getting on the ballot. either all offices should have zero term limits or none. i'd really like 1-2 max for these douchebags.
...
And flying, just like driving, is not a fucking right either.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The problem is that those Israeli security officers are actually highly trained no bullshit profilers. TSA hires the bottom of the barrel. What do you expect. You get what you pay for.
Balderdash!
Why is that?
Because doing security the Israeli way is very expensive, and it's mostly done behind-the-scenes. Thousands of ten-dollar-an-hour TSA drones are much cheaper, and provide the appearance of security.
Hire only attractive female screeners, two drink minimum. Turn this around into a profit center. As a bonus, flyers are less stressed. winning all around.
Seriously not a bad idea on the opposite sex screeners. I'd become a frequent flyer!
I mean you'd have to give folks a choice because some would not dig it, but some would.
On the other hand, just doing away with the whole charade would be even better.
Obama was outspending every President in history (while Bush Jr. - all by himself - increased the national debt by over $5 trillion according to the NY Times).
What's the logic here - Bush was really bad so Obama can't be worse?
I keep wondering how firing a million government employees is going to help create jobs.
First, ask yourself where the money comes from to pay those government employees. Then read some Bastiat (free Kindle edition link) . Here's the Cliff's Notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#Bastiat.27s_argument
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The failed TSA "experiment" of the last few years of using effectivly untrained security gaurds has shown the exact opposite. Professional law enforcement may require better selection and more training time (if starting from none) but you don't need anywhere near as many of them. The only reason we ended up with the joke currently running is that it would have taken time to set things up with professionals and expediency and possibly the side effects of Cheney's medication won. Unfortunately the joke requires a lot of low paid actors pretending to be useful and costs a lot more than a few higher paid skilled workers would cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule
"In January 1994, the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) introduced a "locality pay adjustment" component to the GS salary structure."
http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/pay_scales.shtm
TSA agents are not on the GS pay plan, but they also get a locality adjustment
The math isn't perfect, but the principle is there
To refer to your specific example. NYC is +28.72%, Little Rock, as part of the "Rest of US" category, is +14.16%.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Really? So when I hire a cab to drive me around, I need some special government permission or license in order to do it? What others things are not a right according to you? How about breathing? Learn to think logically please.
Mica said "screeners should be privatized and the agency dismantled."
Good, they have no business in airline security at the federal level.
Does he realize what a big mistake he has made in producing such agency? Maybe he does now.
This is why Libertarians dislike Dems and Neo-Cons.
They always believed a Gov. solution, only to realized later it becomes nothing more than a bureaucracy.
"He won't go through a full body scanner at an airport because 'I don't want them circulating pictures of my beautiful body' all over. He said he opts for a pat-down, and just 'closes his eyes and imagines a beautiful female."
Ha! with a more male hand.
Works for me. Submit a bill and kill the TSA already.
On the contrary, the Israelis do it quite badly. They think that protecting one avenue for attack is going to help, but it just means other places will be targeted.
There are sixty million people in the UK and each day on average close to 0 of them wish to kill a selection of strangers within the country. Is it because we have wonderful security? No. It's because the UK is a bearable place to live.
"Terror" doesn't happen because certain groups are inherently evil. It happens because certain groups of people identifying what is to them a grave injustice lack the means to form a regular military. The solution needs to be the same as it was when we stopped having to bomb-dodge in central London 13 years ago: a willingness to reduce one's ego and bring everyone to the negotiating table.
Sausage The north face outlet Sightseeing bus is worth every, I would spend $24. The group had a special guidance, who is knowledgeable, apparently very like her job. As passengers, it is our duty to call, we found that wild animals, we see a lot of Memphis, dole sheep, caribou and moose; The camera is everywhere flashing. Not every bus group from the mount McKinley that visit, the weather is usually the christian louboutin outlet way to acquire. Mount McKinley saw a few times, and eventually the opinions from a great deal of the giant in the park at the height of the highest, in North America, twenty thousand three hundred and twenty feet, we are very lucky.
Your tax dollars at work ;)
I was with him 100% up to the 'privatisation' bit. But how he thinks that replacing the public airport Gestapo with private security guards (the SA perhaps?) will help, I cannot fathom.
Your suggestion would also work for half the population ... the half I'm not in. :P
Your non-heteronormative phrasing reminds me of some discussions where both heterosexual males and homosexual females are _discussing_ pretty ladies.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
when it doesn't you can usually look and find a local, state, or federal regulation, that prevented the competition from occurring. Far too many cases of sole provider issues are because regulations prevent any meaningful competition from arising. The barriers put up for entry are not worth the costs.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Hire only attractive female screeners.
Yeah, you could hire hooters waitresses and make sure they complement you on the size of your 'weapon' when they grope it. People would be finding excuses to fly.
No sig today...
The previous authority (FAA) also failed miserably in detecting threats...
Will they ever learn that
- Technology is not the solution. Scanners have an 80%+ failure rate on average.
- Groping is not the solution.
None of the scanners, nor grope scanning, would have caught well-hidden carbon fiber box-cutters equivalent to what the 9/11 hijackers used.
Simple baseline profiling would have caught at least 18 of the 9/11 hijackers, probably all of them. It would also have caught both the 'shoe-bomber' and the 'underwear-bomber', both of which known to frequent radical mosques.
Go back to the old metal scanners and none of the shoe removal, liquid in plastic bag circus - which will catch a gun or a knife (it will catch 'last minute desperadoes'), and rely on profiling for the rest (terror). This will both be a lot more effective and a lot less intrusive for the passengers.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
John Mica is the same guy who shut down the FAA for a couple weeks because he decided now is the right time to bust airport unions. He also specifically introduced measures into the FAA funding bill that called for closures in Democrats' districts. Those were the hard-line positions he took that caused the impasse over extension of FAA funding, which is normally a completely routine process.
I'm actually not much of a fan of either unions, or the TSA, but I can recognize partisan hackery when I see it. It's also ludicrous to think that public sector unions are a major cause of our recent woes, as union membership has already been declining for years.
So, sorry, but I'm a little bit inclined to be skeptical of his motives. The GOP are making a living off of objecting to stuff (e.g. TSA) that they were all for, when Republicans controlled the government. People who continue to give these craven conservative monsters the benefit of the doubt are merely fueling their outrageous behavior.
"They’ve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes."
I'm confused - are they talking about politicians or the TSA? Oh wait, it must be the TSA because they make everyone take their shoes off.
And what about those twisted individuals who consider fat, ugly slobs sexy?
Hey, that's the solution! You require that every kind of "special interest group" (pun intended) gets their favored TSA groper. No sane private enterprise would employ roughly 100 security guys per airport and the whole thing collapses.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And they're just as effective, or did you see any terrorist attacks on planes lately?
Before you answer, I have this rock for sale, it protects against tigers.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Watch "Please remove your shoes" - it outlines quite straight everything that is wrong with the TSA and it doesn't just feature some "leftist commie nutjub who was denied to fly" but the creators and workers of TSA.
Main points are:
1) The organization has taken all the ill effects of government organization - that is that people are not actually doing their jobs but their main goal is getting power and advancing their careers. I'm not sure if privatization will help in this at least at the top level...
2) The current system leaks like a sieve. Even the manufacturers of the machines admit that by not using the pre-defined procedures detection rate is poor.
3) Out-of-mind procedures - at one point air marshalls were required to wear suits so that they "keep up the image" of the agency. They actually had officers on airports reporting violators of this policy and air marshalls who would not like to point out that "it's me, kill me first!" by wearing a suit did tricks to avoid them. And one gem - at one point due the lack of budget air marshalls were denied to participate on long flights which required overnight stay in a hotel at some point. This was quickly reversed when it was leaked to public but just shows how the agency has no clue how to run it's operation.
When you hire a cab to drive you around, you need money, thus it's a privilege. If it was a right, then you wouldn't have to pay for it beyond what you already pay in taxes.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
the way israelis do security is very effective.
They manage crowds much better than any american airport. Yes, let's put 1000 people into a small confined space so we can check them for bombs. Sounds like a good plan..
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
They do profiling.
That's a big reason they're effective, but concentrating on the 20-something Arab Muslim engineer from Pakistan and just sending the 90 year-old white lady through the metal detector won't fly politically here.
The problem is, security is like an insurance: Whether it's good or bad, you won't know until disaster strikes. Currently the US is paying a pretty hefty premium for the TSA, but whether it works or not we will not know until they finally catch their first terrorist. Or we see the first terrorist succeed.
Isn't it interesting that we don't get to hear about audits of the whole theater? No responsible company I ever worked for had run a security system for a decade without a single audit. How do we know the process is well developed and secure? And, after all, every citizen of the US is a shareholder of the company USA, so they have a right to know whether the money spent on security is a good investment or should be remodeled.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Tell that to the 90 year olds with depenz and all the bottled waters, nail clippers and mousse they've saved us from.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Actually, we can know, and there are at least small-scale audits. The results of penetration testing that have been made public are disappointing to say the least, not to mention the shoe bomber who was incompetent to carry out his attack but good enough to get past TSA with it.
Given the information in the public domain, I'd say the only reason that we haven't had another successful domestic airline terrorist attack since 2001 is that nobody competent has tried.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
The TSA should be dismantled, but it shouldn't be replaced at all.
The security we had before 9/11 was more than adequate; bringing the odds of a terrorist attack from like 0.0002% to 0.0001% at the cost of billions is completely stupid. Let the CIA, NSA, FBI, Interpol or whatever do their thing and catch terrorists before they even show up at the airport.
The best security measures are locked cockpit doors and the fact that passengers will now lay the smackdown on any would-be terrorist that even attempts to hijack a plane.
~Syberz
For those who, like me, didn't know and weren't told on first usage in the summary.
I somehow can't help feel like it's my natural right not to get groped
It may be; unfortunately, flying isn't.
"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103 (2)
Solution: TSA agents work for tips.
"I'm sorry, Edna, we're going to have to let you go. Nobody gets in your line, they all want to get frisked by Cindi"
Wrong. Totally and completely wrong. Rights are things that no-one can TAKE from you. They do NOT force anyone to GIVE things to you, or guarantee that they will.
Common misconception, but still wrong.
Shouldn't the people that fly pay the costs themselves? Between the TSA and the FAA and all the other subsidies I'm sure it adds up fast.
Hmm, so what other "privileges" should you have to get groped before doing?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Dilbert RSS feed
Please don't confuse "misconception" with "differing definitions". The concept of positive and negative rights exist because not everyone agrees with that definition.
Dilbert RSS feed
The ONLY reason this guy is against the TSA is because they're allowed to unionize.
So if by privatise, we mean that we go back to having the airport/airlines pay for and manage airport security, things could get significantly better. If airlines were responsible for security, then they'd be highly motivated. Who is going to fly on an airline that gets one of their planes hijacked?
The whole planes as weapons thing started and died on 9/11. No passengers will allow it to happen again and we have reinforced cockpit doors, just in case.
I don't think beating your wife is either a privilege or a right. And its probably not public enough to warrant TSAs involvement. But if that's what you're into, you may find yourself getting groped by your cell mate after you're put away.
... yep, that's a groping ... unless maybe you made reservations far enough in advance that they had time to do a background check ... but then again, maybe you're not really the one who made the reservation ... better grope you anyway.
Now, going to the movie theater... well I'm sure the MPAA would like to see you get groped first. And that means more TSA jobs so I'm sure they would be happy do it.
A crowded restaurant
Want to enter a public park? please assume the position.
Where does it end?
Do I understand this correctly ? Is John Mica Flip-Flopping on this subject ????
Okay, you're allowed to have a differing definition as long as we all agree that it's wrong.
Sigh. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the textbook example of a loaded question, which is what yours was. I never defended that you should be groped to enter a plane. I just said, "flying is not a natural right."
Dilbert RSS feed
The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber did not board planes in the US. The US was the destination, thus the TSA airport screeners were not involved. Also, the other plots were foiled before the terrorists even got to the airport, thus the TSA airport screeners were again not involved. Get your facts right!
The TSA is actually a relatively new thing - in the past, all the security was private. So, tell me, which airport did you go to where you had a choice of which security company was going to do your screening?
Privatizing all this again just leads back to where we were - with a bunch of even lower performing security staff than we have now, and no effective oversight.
" . . .receives classified briefings on TSA. Perhaps we should trust him more than most people on this topic."
Okay, Cheney received classified briefings about WMDs in Iraq and most people didn't. Did you trust Cheney? How'd that work out?
And even there, you frequently didn't have any choice. In the DC area, there are three big airports: National (nobody here calls it "Reagan"), Dulles, and BWI. National and Dulles are both controlled by the Metro Washington Airports Authority, and use all the same vendors. BWI is so far away from those of us in Northern Virginia that it's a giant pain in the ass to use. So it's not like you're realistically going to be able to choose an airport based on the quality of the security staff.
Dude, far be it for me to interrupt your dreams of the libertarian paradise, but we ALREADY HAD privatized security service... you know, in the ancient days before the TSA. It certainly wasn't competitive, and anyone who's ever actually set foot inside an airport would know that it's NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to put in multiple competing security checkpoint operations in there. That's just plain dumb.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that CO2 was, in fact, a pollutant, and under the terms of the Clean Air Act, the EPA was required to regulate it.
That has nothing to do with who provided the security and everything to do with the fact that we've gone absolutely apeshit over airport security in recent years. Does anyone seriously think that handing off the TSA mission back to private contractors would magically make the groping, shoe-taking-off, invasive x-raying, etc; just go away?
The TSA is revamped. Its new job is to follow John Mica around and strip-search him 30 times a month at random hours of the night for the rest of his life. His story is then to be made into a documentary which is mandatory viewing for any politician submitting a bill.
Missing the point that in either case, it is none of government's business. All this focus to eradicate just one minor way I might possibly die. And here, I thought far more people died from motor vehicle accidents.
If you start shooting, chances are that the perpetrators will be killed. A few innocents might get hurt. Maybe they die.
If you cooperate with the terrorists, you're rewarding them for their actions. And they live, possibly to strike again.
I'd prefer the former.
Then what IS data?