Slashdot Mirror


Government Study Finds TSA Misconduct Up 26% In 3 Years

rullywowr writes "CNN reports that a recent government study found TSA misconduct has risen sharply in three years. Most have heard of the problems such as stealing, but the report also notes that some employees are sleeping on the job, taking bribes, and letting friends/family through the checkpoints without screening."

196 comments

  1. Study of my own by morcego · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm conducting a "highly" scientific study of my own.

    Please reply here if you are surprised by these news...

    --
    morcego
    1. Re:Study of my own by pakar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, i thought it would be higher than 26%...

    2. Re:Study of my own by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Funny
      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Study of my own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that if the baseline is high, dramatic increases will still show up as relatively small percentages.

      How about forgetting the name calling entirely and just pointing out what they were not taking into account?

    4. Re:Study of my own by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nononono. It is UP 28%. As the whole thing was a misconduct in the first place, I am guessing they are now at 126% at least.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Study of my own by OzPeter · · Score: 0, Troll
      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:Study of my own by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Because you're stupid."

      Says "i kan reed".

    7. Re:Study of my own by Rockoon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How about forgetting the name calling entirely and just pointing out what they were not taking into account?

      Maybe the people that make such simplistic errors of substance while rushing to try to get their two error-laden cents in deserve to be called stupid?

      Reward good behavior. Punish bad behavior.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:Study of my own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of course you are the true arbiter of all that is good and bad behavior.

      Now go fuck yourself.

    9. Re:Study of my own by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Because of course you are the true arbiter of all that is good and bad behavior.

      Some bad behavior is obvious and not at all subjective.

      It is easy to see why this happened. It is because the poster pakar (813627) had no idea what the number meant, but he felt that he just had to comment on the number anyways. Its plainly stupid behavior.

      When you dont understand something, the good and right course of action is to question, not to comment. This is obvious. In his 9 words post, he managed to fulfill every single definition of the word stupid. Not just one of them.. all of them.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    10. Re:Study of my own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's come to youtube links has it?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dntZRJ2BxQ0

    11. Re:Study of my own by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2

      Maybe he wasn't trying to perform a mathematical analysis, and was just making a statement about how corrupt that he view the TSA, and how much worse they've gotten in recent years, even compared to how worthless they were in the past? Maybe, I don't know. Hyberbole and satire has been lacking in recent times; hardly anyone uses them anymore.... I'm sure that almost no everyone expects /. posts to be as dry as the MSDS stapled to a sack of concrete, so by all means, continue being a pendant and a overall cunt.

    12. Re:Study of my own by innerweb · · Score: 1

      I prefer electric cattle prods to words. I find the reward/punishment ratio to be much more conducive to the desired behavior.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    13. Re:Study of my own by innerweb · · Score: 1

      Hyperbole and satire only work with an educated thinking audience. Maybe there is a relationship to their lack of use? Just a thought.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    14. Re:Study of my own by pakar · · Score: 1

      Thanks for having at least one person here that gets it.. :)

    15. Re:Study of my own by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Rick Rolling is not a surprise.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  2. All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While not specifically mentioned in the report, notable cases of theft by TSA agents include a 2012 case in which two former employees pleaded guilty to stealing $40,000 from a checked bag at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, and a 2011 guilty plea from an officer who admitted stealing between $10,000 and $30,000 from travelers at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.

    And what does the poor schmoe who had his travel money stolen? Did the TSA make all those people whole?

    Doubt it.

    More then likely the local agent supervisor threw a from at them and told them to fill it out and mail it in and if they objected further, they would be threatened or at the very least, their balls busted by being "detained" and missing their flight. And for those who haven't flown in the last decade, flights are always booked to the max so good luck getting on the next flight - or the next - or the next - or the....

    They are not all bad. It's just the 99% of them who make the other 1% look bad, is all.

    1. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why would you check that kind of money?

      Why not just put it in your carry on?

      $10,000 is a stack of $100s thinner than a deck of cards. So $40,000 fits in a coat or even a couple pockets and no problem fitting it in carry on.

    2. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does the poor schmoe who had his travel money stolen?

      You seem to have forgotten a very important part of your sentence, here.

      I'm sure they do. What they do, I've no idea...

    3. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP was obviously talking about sex tourists, and the answer is: only the donkey does the poor schmoe who had his money stolen.

    4. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on how fresh your bills are and how they're packed-- last time I left a casino up, I couldn't get 3000 in hundreds to fit in a standard-size wallet and have it fold.

      Having said that, if I was PLANNING to carry 40,000, I could easily manage it, and do so undetected, barring a random search.

    5. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's interesting is that the sentence seems wrong, but I can't figure out how to explain how it's wrong. For instance "What drives the poor schmoe who had his travel money stolen?" is clealy proper English. So why does "What does" require repeating "do" at the end?

    6. Re:All fine and good. by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Why would you check that kind of money?

      Why not just put it in your carry on?

      $10,000 is a stack of $100s thinner than a deck of cards. So $40,000 fits in a coat or even a couple pockets and no problem fitting it in carry on.

      If you put it in your pocket, TSA will make you remove it and send it through the x-ray machine on its own, so not only will it be subject to theft by TSA, but by any passenger that gets through the scanner before you.

      If you put it in your carry-on bag, TSA can open that bag too - nothing is stopping a dishonest employee from opening it away from your sight.

    7. Re:All fine and good. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Because in "What does", "does" is a helping verb, a very common construction in English grammar. "What does he drive?" "What does he eat?" "What does he wear?". The only different here is that the main verb is, by coincidence, the same word as the helping verb, only doing different duty: "What does he do?"

    8. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That would all be on camera. Far safer than checked baggage.

    9. Re:All fine and good. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

      That's a question that should not be asked of anyone in the first place.

    10. Re:All fine and good. by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unless, of course, the agent bribes his supervisor to look the other way (and/or block the camera(s)) while he steals the cash:

      https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-agent-michael-arato-admits-stealing-passengers-security-checks-bribes-article-1.136272

    11. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not all bad. It's just the 99% of them who make the other 1% look bad, is all.

      Actually, if you look at the numbers in the article, there were nearly 10,000 incidences reported in the two year period between 2010 and 2012. Also according to the article, there are 56,000 TSA employees. So really, it's more like 20% make the other 80% look bad (not a whoosh, I wanted to make it clear that you weren't exaggerating all that much).

    12. Re:All fine and good. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Why would you check that kind of money?

      2 years ago I was flying to Bolivia with a group that included a local journalist to cover the trip. The cheap arsed flight went through 3 intermediate stops in central america before getting to our destination. I didn't know it before we left, but the journalist had packed a brand new, high end, Canon DLSR in her checked luggage which was to be her main camera on the trip, and kept her back-up video camera in hand luggage. Guess what didn't make it to the destination? Some people just have no clue, and not even a clue enough to ask if what they are doing is reasonable.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    13. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Still more work for them than stealing from your checked luggage.

    14. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why not?
      If you want to carry cash, have fun I do it all the time. Checking cash is moronic, you are begging for it to be stolen.

    15. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Ouch, including layovers in other nations just makes this scream of naivety on the part of that journalist. Hopefully she took this lesson to heart.

      I check nothing of value, when hand over my bags at the airport I expect to never see them again. Each time they manage to arrive, much less on time I view as a blessing. I have had too much stuff "lost" to do anything else. Once they managed to "lose" beer bottles that were packed in a socks, two on each one over the base the other over the top. Magically they did not lose the socks. The thief left me those. I would have had that in carry on, as I used to do, but they no longer allow that. The beer is not exported to North America so I was pretty sad. Not surprised, just let down.

    16. Re:All fine and good. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      And what does the poor schmoe who had his travel money stolen? Did the TSA make all those people whole?

      Years ago I was flying into the US with a locked Pelican case full of expensive camera equipment. Sometime after I entered the US, the TSA cut the locks off and searched the case (and thoughtfully put the remains of the locks back inside the case along with a pamphlet explaining what had happened). They made no attempt to re-secure the case. When I finally received the case a camera was missing (*) and I have no idea if it was the TSA or someone else who stole it, but the TSA definitely empowered the thief. I looked into making a claim on the TSA/Airline etc but it was difficult to the point that I just gave up in the end.

      * Out of a camera case with $2500 of SLR film cameras and lenses (including my fav 80-200mm lens) the thief stole an old compact digital camera that was probably only worth $75 at the time.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    17. Re:All fine and good. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to carry that much cash and the cash can be confiscated on presumption that you are committing a crime by having it. Why do you have that much cash? Who needs to carry that much cash? Have you paid taxes on it properly? I bet you haven't; guilty of tax evasion. It's probably drug money, since you have no real audit trail that can't be re-used for multiple sums of $40,000. Your audit trail is probably a single source from a money laundering scheme that you thought you could print out and show repeatedly for each instance of $40,000 you have. We're confiscating your money. We can't arrest you, but we can confiscate money from suspected criminal activities.

    18. Re:All fine and good. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What the hell is a sex tourist? Is there a country called sex?

    19. Re:All fine and good. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      I think the bad agents may have as many as 50-100 incidences before they are caught. So the number is probably much lower. (Can't believe I'm defending the TSA here.)

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    20. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is not illegal to carry that much cash. It is illegal to cross the border without declaring it, but that is all.

      They can attempt to confiscate it, but they can do the same to your bank account.

    21. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How many bad agents never get caught?
      I if we define bad agent as having ever stolen from passengers the number is much higher.

    22. Re:All fine and good. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      What the hell is a sex tourist? Is there a country called sex?

      It's a tourist who goes to a country specifically in order to have sex with some one who is most likely a minor. Sex tourism

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    23. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Travelers in the USA with that kind of gear will often check a starting pistol or flare gun, as those have to be properly locked.

      Obviously international travel makes this harder. You should consult your lawyer, doctor, priest, rabbi, mullah and several small children before you attempt this. I am not a lawyer nor have I ever pretended to be one to sleep with women.

    24. Re:All fine and good. by Scarletdown · · Score: 0

      What the hell is a sex tourist? Is there a country called sex?

      None that I am aware of. However, there are cities and towns in the world called: Pune, Bangkok, Intercourse, and Fucking. And let us not forget Lake Titticaca.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    25. Re:All fine and good. by hedwards · · Score: 2

      That's not really a defense of the TSA. If they're missing that many incidences before they finally get rid of the employee, that's pretty serious incompetence and definitely negligent.

    26. Re:All fine and good. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "What the hell is a sex tourist? Is there a country called sex?"

      It's far away, only reachable by Tripper-Clipper.

    27. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not illegal to carry that much cash. It is illegal to cross the border without declaring it, but that is all.

      They can attempt to confiscate it, but they can do the same to your bank account.

      You'll be surprised at what you can have planted on you when someone decides he's going to commit theft under color of authority.

    28. Re:All fine and good. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      It's illegal to carry that much cash

      Bullshit. People like you are the reason we get "misunderstandings" all the time. Do you work in "law enforcement"? It's not illegal to carry a million dollars in cash. It is illegal to enter the country WITHOUT DECLARING IT. If you do not declare over $10,000, you will probably get it confiscated. However if you declare it, there is no law against carrying it.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    29. Re:All fine and good. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      2 years ago I was flying to Bolivia with a group that included a local journalist to cover the trip. The cheap arsed flight went through 3 intermediate stops in central america before getting to our destination. I didn't know it before we left, but the journalist had packed a brand new, high end, Canon DLSR in her checked luggage which was to be her main camera on the trip, and kept her back-up video camera in hand luggage. Guess what didn't make it to the destination?

      Gaddamn, why do you folks put up with that kind of shit? If Greyhound or Amtrak lost someone's baggage (especially baggage containing rather expensive equipment), they'd have a shitfit and someone would lose their job, so why do y'all put up with it when it comes to sky-buses?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    30. Re:All fine and good. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      We've got many of towns with this kind of name in Canada. Bangor, Dildo, Climax, Placentia, Come-By-Chance, etc.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    31. Re:All fine and good. by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      We've got many of towns with this kind of name in Canada. Bangor, Dildo, Climax, Placentia, Come-By-Chance, etc.

      To the state just south of me is one that is one of those "almost but not quite names". When making my quarterly trip on I84 to visit family in Eastern Oregon, I always have to do the Beavis and Butthead laugh as I pass the sign for Condon.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    32. Re:All fine and good. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I was about to get my flame on toward you, then I noticed your sig... Shame the petition is expired.

    33. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution: prosecute the money instead. Enjoy your delusion of the rule of law, "citizen", while we up at the top get underage whores and snort coke off their asses with all this money we confiscated off you. And after that, we're going to have the whores arrested so we don't have to pay them, then seize the money we paid the drug dealers!

    34. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fits in pocket, doesn't draw attention

    35. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything worth more than about $500 never leaves my sight. Not worth the risk.

    36. Re:All fine and good. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      While not specifically mentioned in the report, notable cases of theft by TSA agents include a 2012 case in which two former employees pleaded guilty to stealing $40,000 from a checked bag at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, and a 2011 guilty plea from an officer who admitted stealing between $10,000 and $30,000 from travelers at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.

      And what does the poor schmoe who had his travel money stolen? Did the TSA make all those people whole?

      Doubt it.

      This is why I never put money into luggage. Cash goes out of my wallet and is kept on my person at all times.

      Really you've got to be pretty daft to keep cash in your luggage. It's the easiest thing to steal as you dont have to fence it to get cash.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    37. Re:All fine and good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "does... do" construction is comparatively new. "What does" on it's own is acceptable under the rules of English (such as they are) but archaic.

    38. Re:All fine and good. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Of course I assume that the government is willing to follow its own laws. If the government is willing to act like tyrants and hold property guilty of a crime, there's nothing stopping them from just seizing it anyway, law or no law.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    39. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What exactly is the alternative?
      How do you not put up with it?

      Greyhound as far as I can tell lacks intercontinental service.

    40. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Actually you tacked on that last part.
      A huge amount of sex tourists are not interested in sex with minors. They simply wish to be able to purchase sex with an adult.

    41. Re:All fine and good. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What exactly is the alternative?

      I can think of one that definitely works, and another that might:

      Definitely works - don't fly. If you absolutely, positively have to go to another continent, you may consider booking shipboard passage.

      Might work - take terrestrial transport out of the country to one that doesn't rape you before boarding, and fly out of there.

      How do you not put up with it?

      Oh, it's super-easy - I don't so much as set foot on airport property. Problem solved.

      Greyhound as far as I can tell lacks intercontinental service.

      Hey, wouldn't that be tits! Maybe not intercontinental, but they do service Canada and Mexico as well as the US. How's Mexican airport security these days?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    42. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Mexico is not too bad to fly out of. Canada is worse than Mexico but nothing like the USA.

      I have recently flown through both.

      I am guessing by your use of the word "tits" you are not an American. Our nation is rather large so for all but very few people going to Mexico is not an option, same for Canada.

    43. Re:All fine and good. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I am guessing by your use of the word "tits" you are not an American.

      Matter o' fact I am a 'Merican, born and raised.

      Our nation is rather large so for all but very few people going to Mexico is not an option, same for Canada.

      Oh, malarkey - inconvenient, yes, but not unfeasible. Not to mention, it would probably only take one or two incidents of large groups of people leaving the country explicitly for intercontinental flights before someone with enough money and power to change things took notice.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    44. Re:All fine and good. by delt0r · · Score: 1

      My tablet went missing. The supervisor was convinced that it was them that took it (as in the TSA was convinced it was the TSA!). Unfortunately the cameras/servers were not working properly so he couldn't review the footage before my flight.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    45. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So you consider adding 3 days to a trip to be feasible?

      I am going to guess you get way more vacation than the average american.

      A large enough group doing it would simply result it becoming illegal. I once made the mistake of telling the American border guard I had done that when returning from a flight back into Toronto. That resulted in a huge wasted of time and lots of accusations that I was up to no good since I prefered to avoid his coworkers. Now I just tell them I was on vacation and omit that the vacation included travel outside of Canada.

    46. Re:All fine and good. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So you consider adding 3 days to a trip to be feasible?

      If you actually plan the shit, yea. Think of it as a bonus roadtrip.

      I am going to guess you get way more vacation than the average american.

      Less, probably. In fact, I receive so little vacation time that I've taken a total of one 4-day trip in the last 3 years.

      Thing is, I'm one of those (apparently) rare souls who flat-out refuses to compromise his morals for, well, pretty much anything. Fuck convenience, fuck cooperation - I've got a right to be who I am and live the way I want (so long as I don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same, naturally), and by Odin's beard, I'm a-gonna. If that means I don't vacation or travel as much as others, so be it. I sleep easy knowing that I haven't given up anything important to me just for the sake of convenience.

      A large enough group doing it would simply result it becoming illegal. I once made the mistake of telling the American border guard I had done that when returning from a flight back into Toronto. That resulted in a huge wasted of time and lots of accusations that I was up to no good since I prefered to avoid his coworkers. Now I just tell them I was on vacation and omit that the vacation included travel outside of Canada.

      Yea, and doesn't that piss you off? It should. Like, to the point that you, I, and as many other people as we can muster work together to protest such an egregious violation of our rights.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    47. Re:All fine and good. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Road Trips suck. That is why we have other methods of travel.

      If you have so little vacation you might realize why your idea is not practical. I have family on other continents, so I can't just say I am not going.

      How would we protest such a thing in meaningful way? I am not opposed to the idea, I just don't think the two of us yelling about it would be much use.

    48. Re:All fine and good. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Apparently in some states (Virginia!), if you're pulled over and the cop finds more than $100 on your person, they can confiscate it as supposition of criminal activity. $100.

      Airport for non-international flights will throw a fit if they find out you have large amounts of cash.

      Any bank transfers over $10,000 are mandatory reporting, even in-country. A $9,998 cash deposit looks suspicious and is supposed to be reported ("just under the radar" means "suspicious"). Two $5,000 transfers will appear suspicious and must be reported. Wandering around with $10,000 on your person, getting pulled over, searched, and having $10,000 discovered on your person will result in your immediate arrest for questioning and/or your money being confiscated.

      I don't care what the law says; if the actual law says you're allowed to grow your own weed, but the feds show up and arrest you and the judge sentences you for 8 years in federal prison, all your whining about what the law says is invalid. Shit is illegal. That doesn't mean it should be illegal--we should put a boot in someone's ass for this--but it's illegal.

    49. Re:All fine and good. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Road Trips suck. That is why we have other methods of travel.

      Matter of opinion - I love 'em. Great way to see a lot of the neat shit we have in this country.

      If you have so little vacation you might realize why your idea is not practical.

      Practical enough for me - I plan shit. Like taking vacation over a holiday weekend, so I can turn 3 days into 5 or 6 without burning my whole time-off wad. YMMV, of course.

      I have family on other continents, so I can't just say I am not going.

      Sure you can - nobody's got a gun to your head (at least, I hope they don't, and if they did I can't imagine why you would want to visit them). What you probably mean here is that you won't say you are not going, because the priority of seeing your family in a timely, convenient manner trumps any desire to protest against being treated like chattels. That's your decision to make, and though I disagree with the rationale I understand that we all don't share identical priorities.

      How would we protest such a thing in meaningful way? I am not opposed to the idea, I just don't think the two of us yelling about it would be much use.

      I gave a couple ideas, didn't I? 1) don't fly. 2) If you have to fly intercontinentally, plan ahead and do it from another country. Or maybe consider booking shipboard passage, if such a thing still exists.

      You could also make an ass of yourself in the security line, but personally I wouldn't recommend it.

      How about you? I'm open to suggestions here, let's get the ball a-rollin!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  3. Broader problem by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think we could probably just say this across the board in our government...

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Broader problem by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Because, you know, your assumptions are obviously true without having any sort of data backing like the story.

    2. Re:Broader problem by intermodal · · Score: 2

      They're at least as reliable as anything coming out of the NSA's publicity arm, the past four administrations, and various other elements of the government. Sure, there are good agencies here and there, but the norm is corruption.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:Broader problem by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I think we could probably just say this across the board in humanity

      FTFY. TSA employees are human too.

    4. Re:Broader problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if it had been in private enterprise it would have been a "business model" instead...

    5. Re:Broader problem by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think we could probably just say this across the board in humanity

      FTFY. TSA employees are human too.

      [citation needed]

    6. Re:Broader problem by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Humanity without accountability.

      At least a private security firm would be accountable on the bottom line. If they were driving away customers with bad policy they'd be replaced. When a government agency does a bad job they get more money to "fix" the problems.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:Broader problem by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Not all educated guesses are false.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Broader problem by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think you can. In fact the attitude that "you will find this everywhere" is exactly what encourages this sort of behavior. I think that most government employees (like most private industry employees) are honest. I think we need to fight strongly against the idea that theft and corruption by an arm of the government is OK, or we will wind up in a situation where everyone does it. There are quite a few countries where this is true already - and I don't want to live in any of them.

      Theft and abuse of power by what are essentially law enforcement personnel is a serious offense and should result is serious jail time.

    9. Re:Broader problem by intermodal · · Score: 1

      you seem to misunderstand my statement. I am in fact pointing out how corrupt our government is, and how much the need for the corruption to be stopped has increased over recent years. Along with increasing the need for people to do everything they can to help put an end to this nonsense.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    10. Re:Broader problem by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I agree that corruption is a problem, but it is not all pervasive and we need to focus on where we do have problems. What I fear is that people will come to accept that "government is corrupt" which quickly leads to " nothing we can do". Once you do have very broad corruption it is extremely difficult to fix without a revolution.

    11. Re:Broader problem by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      No, but "guesses" that are basically restatements of a political party's idea of moral rectitude are to be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism.

    12. Re:Broader problem by intermodal · · Score: 1

      The problem is, I think you're right, and I'm concerned that my lifetime may see either a total federal collapse or a revolution. I take politics seriously and pay attention specifically because I really don't want to see either of those happen. I know that neither is likely to give us a result that we actually want.

      I'm hoping for some peaceful alternative, but I'm not sure enough of our elected officials at present are up to the task. That's why I put effort in at local/state level to improve the field of candidates in each election. It's not the general election where you put in guys that fix things. It's in the primaries, and it's truly disturbing how many people don't even know they're happening until they're over.

      If you don't do your duty during the primaries, you're stuck with two bad options on election day. And, at that point, we're screwed.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    13. Re:Broader problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say the corruption is pretty obvious, but I guess some people need data before they'll think bad thoughts about Big Brother.

    14. Re:Broader problem by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I think that most government employees (like most private industry employees) are honest.

      I find that comical. Or maybe not. Maybe they're completely honest, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what they're doing is good for a society that supposedly loves freedom.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    15. Re:Broader problem by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I disagree. When those who are not actively corrupt act to shield those who ARE actively corrupt, then they are also corrupt. So police that don't arrest officers that commit felonies are corrupt, even though they, themselves, are only passive observers. And management that tolerates such actions is corrupt, and, itself, criminal (misfeasance, at a minimum, but probably actually felonious...and if not, it SHOULD be felonious).

      Police and others who are given extra authority should be held to a more ridgid standard than are others. And they should be punished when they do not live up to that standard. (I suspect that nearly half the police in this city should be in prison, mainly for aiding and abeting after the fact, but as they are in a position of power that should be grounds for imprisonment.)

      N.B.: IANAL. I suspect that if I were I could name specific grounds for prosecution of those that I say "should be imprisoned". IOW, I doubt that any new laws are required, merely enforcement of laws already on the books.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:Broader problem by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      If the corruption really has affected the majority of law enforcement, then its pretty much game over. If the legal system really doesn't work, there is no way to stop the corruption for spreading and eventually there will be collapse revolution and anarchy. At that point people will discover that anarchy really is the worst form of government.

      Still, I don't think it is that bad. I think the majority of law enforcement are basically honest and that we can still fix the problem.

    17. Re:Broader problem by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If this was true why do they tolerate these criminals among them?

      Why do they help in their coverups?

  4. Que surprise? by Chas · · Score: 1

    You mean the US Government's attempt to corner the market in minimum wage, untrained rent-a-cops in airports is a spectacular cluster-fuck?
    But look at all the good they've done!
    Like the economy!
    Oops!
    Err...Like the budget!
    Uhh...
    Social Security! ...
    Yeah. I'll just shut up now...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Que surprise? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is wrong with social security?
      It is fully funded for decades and simply upping the cut for contributions with inflation would extend it even further.

      Collecting from folks who take $1 salaries and get stock instead would help even more.

    2. Re:Que surprise? by Desler · · Score: 2

      The security screeners make between around $23000 to $35000 plus locality pay. That is not minimum wage. 40 hour per week minimum wage job pays only $15000 a year.

    3. Re:Que surprise? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Because it's provided by "duh gubmint" so it's evil and wrong. Duuuh.

    4. Re:Que surprise? by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 2

      Not to mention it has, over the years, produced billions in surplus. It's not the fault of social security programs that all that money gets skimmed off and rolled into the rest of the budget to pay for things that *aren't* sustainable...

    5. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> What is wrong with social security?

      Seems like half the people on it for "disability" aren't disabled...?
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/10/too-tired-to-work-but-not-too-tired-to-play-utah-ag-busts-alleged-social-security-fraudsters/

      Or, if you look at it purely as a retirement plan, where's the option to opt out and invest the money in your own 401K instead?

    6. Re:Que surprise? by L4m3rthanyou · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hey now, calling them "rent-a-cops" is a unfair... to security guards.

      I prefer to refer to airport screeners as "TSA-holes".

      --
      One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
    7. Re:Que surprise? by Desler · · Score: 1

      368 allegations of which 157 claims were denied by SSA is not even remotely the same as your ridiculous claim that half of all people claiming SS disablity benefits aren't disabled .

    8. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I prefer to refer to airport screeners as "TSA-holes".

      but that is unfair to aholes!

    9. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, if you look at it purely as a retirement plan, where's the option to opt out and invest the money in your own 401K instead?

      You start from a flawed premise. What you pay in is not like making a contribution to a 401(k). You are laying for current benefits. Not paying in to a fund holding money for yourself.

    10. Re:Que surprise? by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      The same place as the magic no risk 401k.

      If we did that you would opt out and then still want us to pay for your retirement if you 401k failed.

      SS is a retirement vehicle of last resort. It is basically insurance.

    11. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I love it when people post "evidence" from theblaze.com.
      That website is awesome, you totally won't get spyware from that site.

    12. Re:Que surprise? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Especially when the story doesn't even prove his claim.

    13. Re:Que surprise? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      How about that it is being run by a trustee that broke the trust by using it to write IOUs so that it could use the trust fund like a slush fund?

      I have far less problem with SS which is implemented as a segregated tax all its own for a single purpose, than I am with with a fake segregated tax that really just siphons out into the main pool....they very one it was supposed to be segregated from.

      If any other trust fund trustee operated the fund the same way that the federal government has operated the SS trust fund, we would be talking about how many lifetimes they should spend in jail.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    14. Re:Que surprise? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It is damn low though. It is mall rent a cop pay.

    15. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Social Security today is basically a Ponzi Scheme. There is no lock-box or anything; Congress-critters got to treat it as current revenue for their grandiose plans, then just write IOUs to themselves that they'll pay it back later. And once the amount coming in from FICA is less than that going out in payments to people, then you're in the red. In the coming years, the baby boomers will get to retirement age. Once they do retire that means their FICA taxes drop to zero. And they actually get paid from Social Security, thus moving funds from the IN side to the OUT side. Even if young people of 20 years are hired to take their place, one-to-one, actual wages paid (and thus taxed) will be much lower, simply due to the difference in 40+ years of business experience versus zip.

      I repeat: they already spent the money. They're also spending other money we don't actually have in the federal budget, which creates that huge block we know as the Deficit.

      So, no, it's not fully funded. There are IOUs that the government is responsible for. But there is no law, nor constitutional requirements, stopping them from passing a law abolishing Social Security (and those IOUs that are being saved up for it). They would have to deal with 'angry' constituents (angry being a gross understatement), but they could cut or get rid of it all.

    16. Re:Que surprise? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is wrong with social security?

      Absolutely everything? To start with, there is the fact I'm going to pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, probably) of dollars into it and won't see a single dime of it back, because it will be bankrupt a decade or more before I'll even come closer to considering retiring. The system is inherently and utterly broken in a world were people are living longer and having fewer children. It cannot remain viable unless there are far fewer people retired than working, which, with the modern birthrate and age of living, is impossible. The only people who will benefit from the system are those who are already retired or relatively close to it. People under 30 or so? Won't see a dime from it. People in their 40s are likely to retire, only to discover the money drying up soon after.

      Social Security was devised in a world with radically different demographics than the current one. Unless our society undergoes a massive reversion (which would have negative impacts in other areas), it's a totally non-viable system.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    17. Re:Que surprise? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Sure but even using this flawed methodology it will be sound for many decades.

      A politician once suggested such a lock box, the american people mocked him and elected an anti-intellectual pretend cowboy. Mind you since he has degrees from the same elitist schools he was railing against he was clearly just acting for the cameras.

    18. Re:Que surprise? by Desler · · Score: 2

      Sure. But their point was to impugn the TSA agents by mocking them as mininum wage earners which they aren't. Now a number of themdefinitely deserve criticism but not based on something so silly.

    19. Re:Que surprise? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      I'm actually very surprised that they allowed this report to be released.

    20. Re:Que surprise? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't think the fact that they are paid like mall security is something to mock?

      They are supposed to be this professional force of protection for our nation's airports and we pay them like the guy guarding the Orange Julius. One of these things is not like the other.

    21. Re:Que surprise? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It will be paying out 71% in 2047 so exactly how young are you?

    22. Re:Que surprise? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0

      Two words:

        Ponzi Scheme.

      Which are supposed to be illegal except when the government does it apparently

      I'll probably be down-voted for stating the obvious truth but instead of shooting the messenger people should focus on the message:

              The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

      The problem is two-fold:

      1. If people are too stupid to save for themselves then the rest of society should not be (financially) burdened to literally pay for their stupidity.

      2. If the taxes are > 10% then guess what: We have a government spending problem. No wonder people can't save when an additional 23% of their money is stolen.

      Of course it would help if the government didn't profit off of people dieing with bullshit "Inheritance Tax". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax

      When greed permeates the whole system all sorts of half-baked and half-assed solutions look viable.

    23. Re:Que surprise? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's effectively a pyramid scheme that relies on an expanding population as well. It relies on more people joining to fund the smaller number of people at the top, but in this case *everyone* joins and so you need population expansion.

    24. Re:Que surprise? by geoskd · · Score: 2

      What is wrong with social security? It is fully funded for decades and simply upping the cut for contributions with inflation would extend it even further.

      Social security is not properly funded. The Social security administration has (by congressional decree) taken a very sizable position in Special US government bonds. There is no Cash in those accounts, just US government iou's. If congress decides to welch on those debts, then social security is bankrupt. These are not small amounts of money. By most estimates the debt is as large as 4 Trillion dollars. With our current "discretionary" budget this would take the U.S. approximately 40 years to repay not including interest due, and not spending any money on any other discretionary expense like infrastructure maintenance, or NASA, etc... This debt is cripplingly high, and the debt maintenance on the bonds alone is high enough to cause a massive budget deficit every year. Congress spent the money over two decades starting in the early 80's, and all thats left are the iou's. Social security is bankrupt in all but name. They made bad loans to the US, and congress wants to welch on those debts.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    25. Re:Que surprise? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Talking Carter/Reagan? If so, then I would also like to point out that the anti-intellectual pretend cowboy also used rather treasonous tactics to influence the election in his favor.... the same tactics that were recently revealed as having been used over a decade earlier by Nixon.
      (that is, colluding with an external entity to sink negotiations, while promising the same a better deal under the new administration of he gets elected)

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    26. Re:Que surprise? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Think later, but much the same setup.

      Gore/G.W.Bush.

    27. Re:Que surprise? by Wookact · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that someone would post this as AC. I mean the Blaze is highly credible, and the claims are well founded! /sarc

    28. Re:Que surprise? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      I don't retirement fund.

      I'm investing in my debt. Going to pay off my mortgage in 3 years. I make $65k/year. I'm paying off a full mortgage on a house in 3 years.

      Going to invest in savings after that. You know, have $500/mo expenses, put $2000/mo in bank. Keep some, spend some. I'll spend enough to live a life of luxury (I do now, but I'm very good at maximizing the effectiveness of my spending), because youth is wasted on the young and I don't want to save up enough money being miserable my whole life to spend the end of my life being miserable struggling with health issues trying to not die. It's like people who hurry up and get married when they're 18 because girls are like... "I don't want to be an old maid stuck with kids!" You are going to have kids when you're like 19, then when you're 38 they'll get out of the house. You'll be almost in your 40s, you'll be married or divorced and struggling, your college years will be gone, your youth will be gone, you'll have missed all the time to party, and the best you can do is maybe spend that time being a cougar--which you could have done with a couple teenagers in the house anyway. Good job, idiot.

      Economics dictates that retirement is essentially cheating. The system will continuously try to derive as much money from you as possible. Most people are too dumb for this and so are easy, so the smart ones of us can totally escape in impossible ways. If everyone was this smart, they would invariably decide that they need $X for their retirement goals and take that as a fixed expense, and so the entire system would still facilitate saving money. Instead, people are dumb and invest in index funds in 401(k) thinking it'll "grow", when that's not how it works; the funds managers take a percentage in any case, so they're happy with this.

      Then we want everyone to pitch in to pay for old people, but then we want better health care to extend life from about 35-45 years (medieval lifespans) to 60, 80, 90 years, and then half the population is between 55 and 82 because the mean lifespan is 82 and nobody wants to put 50% of their paycheck into social security (twice as many old people as young people) and so the retirement age gets raised. Then people go, "Why I have to work until I 70?!?!?!?!" (if there's 1 person of retirement age for every (n) people working, you need to pay 1/(n+1) of your income into social security PLUS overhead; that means, for a stable mean lifespan (L) and retirement age (R), you need to pay (1/(R/(L-R))) of your paycheck into social security payout to keep it afloat. This would be absurd, except that people keep buying houses and now are going to have mortgages until they die and so aren't going to get to retire on 1/5 of their living income).

    29. Re:Que surprise? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Most people are not stupid, they just don't have as much as you.

      Your income is well above the median and I am going to guess your upbringing led you to this outcome. Good on you, but this is simply not an option for most. I am doing something quite similar, but I am not going to pretend it is an option for most people. That would be disingenuous and not factual. No matter how smart you are, you will not be doing this on $25k a year. Lots of people simply did not have the opportunities I had growing up nor the support systems I had. I know in the same situation my life would not have been much different. My parents started poor and ended up paying for most of my tuition at a prestigious private university. My spouse went to a public university. In her case teenagers could get away with a lot that would normally land them in jail. In my case I could do anything short of murder and suffer no punishment while getting my bachelors degree. This meant both of us spent our prime screwing up years protected from the consequences of those actions. I will not judge too harshly those who did not have that huge advantage.

      401ks are not the desired retirement for anyone, they are the only option left now that pensions have been killed off.

    30. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The authors of the report are now on the No-Fly list.

    31. Re:Que surprise? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To start with, there is the fact I'm going to pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, probably) of dollars into it and won't see a single dime of it back, because it will be bankrupt

      There are a half-dozen ways this can be fixed, most of them relatively painless. There are many easy ways to fix this problem, but our incompetent politicians have failed to choose any of them to fix it.

      Every year that passes it becomes more and more painful to fix.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Que surprise? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with social security?

      Absolutely everything? To start with, there is the fact I'm going to pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, probably) of dollars into it and won't see a single dime of it back, because it will be bankrupt a decade or more before I'll even come closer to considering retiring. The system is inherently and utterly broken in a world were people are living longer and having fewer children. It cannot remain viable unless there are far fewer people retired than working, which, with the modern birthrate and age of living, is impossible. The only people who will benefit from the system are those who are already retired or relatively close to it. People under 30 or so? Won't see a dime from it. People in their 40s are likely to retire, only to discover the money drying up soon after.

      Social Security was devised in a world with radically different demographics than the current one. Unless our society undergoes a massive reversion (which would have negative impacts in other areas), it's a totally non-viable system.

      You know, when I was a kid that said we'd run out of gas by the time I was an adult. And guess what? We haven't yet.

      Quit fucking crying, SS will be there when you get older.

      in fact, you are more likely to get Flying Cars then a collapse of SS.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    33. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they would raise the retirement age, it would extend it much longer, people live longer, so the age has to move as well.

    34. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there enough numbers for all the points listing all the things wrong with Social Security?
      One would have to be "upping the cut for contributions".
      Two would be the fact that SS taxes are dumped into the USA Federal Government's General Operating Account.
      Three would be the fact that SS, itself, is a giant Ponzi scheme--the payroll taxpayers are paying their "contributions" to those already receiving benefits.
      Four would be the lack of investments in non-Federal Government accounts which have a much better return on the "contributions" than the Federal Government General Operating Account. (Even a savings account at less than 1% has a significantly better dividend rate than the Federal Government General Operating Account.)
      Five would be the move of "full retirement age" from 65 yo 70. (Until recently, my full retirement age was 65; now it is 67. Younger people will be shifted to 70 automatically.
      Six would be the abandonment by Democrat Congress Person of the promise (that they made to all taxpayers) to move full retirement to 60.
      Seven would be the abandonment of cost of living increases to SS recipients--that is, the abandonment of the promise that SS payments would keep pace with the cost of living.
      Shall I go on?
      Had the Federal Government really cared about the taxpayers, different investment options would have been offered. The "bastards" would put anyone in jail if they did not pay their SS tax but invested it for a greater return in the private/commercial funds (which would lead to greater investments in "infrastructure", "the children", and would increase the number of employed taxpayers).

    35. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are referring to an estimate--it is not 2047 yet and, therefore, not a fact yet.
      Plus, if you follow Federal Government figures, everything is placed lower a month or two later when better/more complete data becomes available.
      With more and more people going on Social Security Disability than the Federal Government planned, do you really think any figure the Federal Government releases will be "in the ballpark". Check what the estimated costs of Obamacare are now as compared before it was approved by Congress.
      You, evidently, are too youth to know any history of the USA Federal Government that predates 2000.

    36. Re:Que surprise? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Same gang of conspirators all three times too actually.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    37. Re:Que surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know! An Orange Julius is delicious. Airports taste like disinfectant and frustration.

    38. Re:Que surprise? by jittles · · Score: 2

      It will be paying out 71% in 2047 so exactly how young are you?

      I'm in my 30s and I have over 30 years until I hit social security age. So it'll be about 2047 when I am even eligible to collect my first cent... I've been contributing to social security for over 16 years now, and the last 6+ I've been capped out at the max contribution.

    39. Re:Que surprise? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we should hold pensioner gladiatorial combats instead, let them fight it out, all of them. Those 1% would make bad sport as they wouldn't last long, oh well ;P.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    40. Re:Que surprise? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      That still doesn't fix it. If you provide politicians with the option of kicking the can down the road, they will.

    41. Re:Que surprise? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Which is the exact opposite of how the program was sold to the public when it was started. The fact that it's paying for current benefits makes it even worse. With a private retirement plan, at least you could expect to get the measly 1.7% ROI that Social Security provides. Given that it pays for current benefits, nobody has even that protection. Hell, 1-year Treasury bonds pay more than Social Security benefits.

    42. Re:Que surprise? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      The American people were sold a bill of goods, and most are too ignorant to realize it.

      It's only solvent for decades because of the Treasury IOUs. IOUs that must be paid from the same entity to itself. The money has to come from somewhere, be it increased taxes, decreased benefits, or inflation of the money supply. This will happen long before the fund "runs dry."

    43. Re:Que surprise? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, those who have no problem with Social Security will continue to bury their heads in the sand by believing US government projections.

    44. Re:Que surprise? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Median income for blacks is $32k. For all races it's $50k. Whites $55k. Privileged slanty-eyed Asians $65k, so don't tell me blacks are privileged in this country (though I will agree AA is bullshit).

      I was raised to understand that 401(k) is the most important thing in the world, that debt is a thing you manage rather than eliminate, and that taking as much debt as you can and stretching it out for years and years is great as long as your payments are low. Everything I was taught was a lie, and I used a bunch of fourth grade math to figure out how it really works. Long division is hard.

      I went to community college. I dropped out.

      I'll never have any friends, never go on a date, and never have a girlfriend; but I've solved all my own problems and I'm set for life.

      401(k) are not the only option. Stop saving money in a 401(k). You know this thing called a "Credit Union"? They have a "Share"? You put your money there. But first, you pay off these things called "Loans" and "Credit Cards". Honestly what the fuck do you think a 401(k) does? Hint: It doesn't get you money. Your money won't "grow" in a 401(k) any more than it'll "Grow" in scratch-offs.

      Let's be direct: unless you're actually a studious stock market trader--I was once, I learned how to measure and identify the movements so I knew when to buy and sell, and it was the worst experience of my life--you're just throwing your money in a magic pot and hoping it'll come out bigger instead of smaller. I made 1% per day averaged over 3-5 days consistently, turned $800 into $3500, and ... was totally tweaked out. Fuck that, gave that shit up because no fucking way. That's what your 401(k) is. Oh, you bought the S&P500 index in 2004 and you're going to "let it grow"? How'd losing 90% of your money work for you? Guess you didn't read the market trends right! You know, that market that makes 10% per year that you just have to "buy and hold", right?

      Pensions were a huge gamble, but a more stable one. Everyone who had a GM pension lost theirs.

  5. Recently in an airport. by flogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I traveled via plan; I went through the security checkpoint..

    . It was the typical experience that everyone has come to expect. But once it is over, you're free to roam the "Secured" area of the airport. I don;t know how often this happens, but as we were getting ready to board the airplane, Three TSA agents showed up in their hands of blue, (One too many for a good firefly reference.)

    Anyway, it was announced that the TSA would be doing random luggage checks as we boarded the plane. I watched what was happening and the "random" checks were that they stopped everyone with a backpack and/or large purse. No one with a regular wheely-carry on luggage was randomly checked. I observed about 30 people board the plane and "predicted which people ahead of me were randomly selected. As my turn to board the plane approached, I stepped in line and said to the agent, "Some back at the regular checkpoint not doing his job and taking a nap?" The TSA guys scowled at me, physically pulled me aside, and went through every article of clothing and compartment of my regular luggage carry-on. At least he attempted to fold everything back and put it in the way it came out.

    I should have asked him for a piece of paper saying my luggage was checked by the TSA,

    I wonder if they are trying to police up their "faults" by doing even more checks past where we are used to them happening?

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:Recently in an airport. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure your anus wasn't sore after? Makes you think GB and BO should both be sharing a jail cell by now. And to the hipster crying over SS, stop crying and keep working baby. Just keep taking it American fools.

    2. Re:Recently in an airport. by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I traveled via plan; I went through the security checkpoint..

      . It was the typical experience that everyone has come to expect. But once it is over, you're free to roam the "Secured" area of the airport. I don;t know how often this happens, but as we were getting ready to board the airplane, Three TSA agents showed up in their hands of blue, (One too many for a good firefly reference.)

        Anyway, it was announced that the TSA would be doing random luggage checks as we boarded the plane. I watched what was happening and the "random" checks were that they stopped everyone with a backpack and/or large purse.

      I've been through that too, and the most ridiculous part is that they announce it ahead of time and in an open boarding area, so anyone that was planning on carrying contraband on board would just skip that flight and call the airline to say their car broke down so they need to cancel their ticket and rebook on a later flight.

      What's the point of the additional screening if people are allowed to opt-out by skipping the flight?

    3. Re:Recently in an airport. by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Of course its not just the TSA. Normally I charge my phone in the car and turn on the gps with waze because I like reporting speed traps, and it has saved my bacon a few times by routing me around traffic.

      Anyway today, of course, I left my phone at home, which is too bad because when reporting police/accidents whatever, there is an option to take a picture, and I totally saw the detail cop sitting in his cruiser, with his bubblegum machines going and taking a nap at the wheel.

      But hey, details keep us safe they say.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Recently in an airport. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Or just go to the bathroom, miss the flight and get on the next one. A simple case of travelers diarrhea would be totally believeable.

    5. Re:Recently in an airport. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Anyway, it was announced that the TSA would be doing random luggage checks as we boarded the plane.

      I have also seen TSA agents taking samples of drinks as people lined up at the gate and then testing it on the spot for who knows what.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:Recently in an airport. by Wookact · · Score: 1

      The last time I flew my checked luggage was inspected four different times. (four different "We have inspected your stuff" slips with four different names.)

    7. Re:Recently in an airport. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I witnesses them do ID checks at the gate they announced it up front. Everybody in line got out their ids and played along. I just kept sitting in my seat until they got through everyone, then simply walked up when the line died, and went onto the plane. Nobody stopped me and nobody cared. What a joke.

    8. Re:Recently in an airport. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      this is just begging for a "in Soviet America..." meme

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    9. Re:Recently in an airport. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I've been through that too, and the most ridiculous part is that they announce it ahead of time and in an open boarding area, so anyone that was planning on carrying contraband on board would just skip that flight and call the airline to say their car broke down so they need to cancel their ticket and rebook on a later flight.

      I've been in some large airports, but if you know of one where you need to drive from the check-in counter through the security checkpoint and then to the gate, I'd like to hear of it. Otherwise, how could your car breaking down after you get to the departure gate where this announcement is made make you miss the flight?

      Got sick or simply missed the flight, perhaps, but you'll pay the penalty for having checked in and then not boarding. I wouldn't bet against doing that is sufficient to get a quad-S special treatment boarding pass for the next flight.

      I got one of those because my international flight arrived late and I didn't get through customs/etc until long after my original connection left. The problem was, I got the new pass at the gate. The gate agent rebooked me, bingo, no SSSS.

    10. Re:Recently in an airport. by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I've been through that too, and the most ridiculous part is that they announce it ahead of time and in an open boarding area, so anyone that was planning on carrying contraband on board would just skip that flight and call the airline to say their car broke down so they need to cancel their ticket and rebook on a later flight.

      I've been in some large airports, but if you know of one where you need to drive from the check-in counter through the security checkpoint and then to the gate, I'd like to hear of it. Otherwise, how could your car breaking down after you get to the departure gate where this announcement is made make you miss the flight?

      I've never been in an airport where TSA scans my boarding pass and knows if I actually passed security - they typically just scribble some illegible mark on the boarding pass and since I've checked-in online from home, not even the airline knows if I'm actually at the airport until I board and they scan my boarding pass.

      Do some airports scan boarding passes in the TSA security line?

      Got sick or simply missed the flight, perhaps, but you'll pay the penalty for having checked in and then not boarding. I wouldn't bet against doing that is sufficient to get a quad-S special treatment boarding pass for the next flight.

      It doesn't matter - a terrorist is likely to be traveling under an assumed name anyway so next time he'll just use a new name - it's not impossible to get a fake drivers license. Any town with a significant illegal immigrant population will have a dozen places where you can pick up a fake driver's license.

    11. Re:Recently in an airport. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      They're checking for TATP or something similar, even though no sane person would carry it in liquid form. Even terrorists aren't that stupid. They carry the solid ingredients and mix it in the bathroom (and that's the stupid ones, since creating liquid explosives like that require careful temperature control lest they create an explosion just large enough to kill themselves).

    12. Re:Recently in an airport. by hankwang · · Score: 1

      They're checking for TATP or something similar, even though no sane person would carry it in liquid form.

      You have it backwards. TATP is a solid explosive compound that can be produced from liquid acetone, liquid hydrogen peroxide, and an acid. If TSA is afraid of TATP, then it makes sense to check that people aren't carrying hydrogen peroxide.

  6. TSA ? by vikingpower · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TSA is the main reason I have been refusing to fly to and within the US for years now. Colleagues, friends and acquaintances reporting the same. The security craze is costing the US money.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:TSA ? by Cosgrach · · Score: 2

      That's why I stopped flying as well.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    2. Re:TSA ? by shbazjinkens · · Score: 1

      TSA is the main reason I have been refusing to fly to and within the US for years now. Colleagues, friends and acquaintances reporting the same. The security craze is costing the US money.

      I've flown through most regions of the USA, some 80k miles maybe through too many airports to mention. Been to foreign airports in London Heathrow, Frankfurt, Bucharest, Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai. All of them seemed pretty similar to TSA style screening, with some having stricter screening practice pre-board and upon departure. For my connecting flights through Frankfurt and Hong Kong, my luggage was searched again, even though I was simply deplaning and re-boarding the same plane. The main difference I've noticed is that the nude-o-scopes are absent, but people are still around to feel me up and rifle through my luggage in most countries. So what's different, from your perspective, in your home country?

    3. Re:TSA ? by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Me too. Well, that and my arms got too tired.

    4. Re:TSA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our security agents aren't assholes.

    5. Re:TSA ? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Since there's that 20 mile gap in Panama in the Pan American Highway we don't have much choice when we go to Peru. And I am **NOT** driving across the Midwest again if I have to visit my mom in Michigan. (There's a reason why it's called "flyover country".) Guess we're stuck putting up with Homeland Security Theater 3000 for now.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:TSA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what's different, from your perspective, in your home country?

      It's not the TSA-style screening that is the problem, it's the attitude.

      A few anecdotes:

      I flew through JFK a while ago, and on the way in (flying into JFK and then onwards) there was a checkpoint where you had to show your boarding card and passport before heading in to the screening area. I offered mine to the guy at the entrance who was sitting on a chair with his arms folded who looked right at me, and then turned to ask a colleague if they'd seen so-and-so anywhere. Not even an acknowledgement of my existence or a "one moment please". He'd obviously seen me holding my documents out to him so I just shrugged and started walking through at which point he went nuts and asked me if I was crazy, before scribbling on my pass and practically throwing it back at me. I'm sorry, but if you're going to ignore procedure when I offer you my documents then I'm going to ignore procedure (and you) when you ignore me.

      On the way home I happened to get the same guy at immigration as I'd had on the way in. He looked at my passport, did a double take and then asked "Haven't I seen you before recently?". "Uh, yeah, about a week ago" I told him. He went "hmmmm", spent a few minutes flicking through my passport to the first stamp and said "Yeah, 7 days ago". After a bit of tapping at his keyboard and a few skeptical looks he asked "So, will I be seeing you again anytime soon?" with a raised eyebrow and a tone of voice which said he was extremely dubious at the idea someone might have to fly into and out of the same airport on a round trip.

      Contrast that to other flights I've had:

      In Malaysia security officials almost always smiled and even said "Thank you" or "have a nice flight" which I've never once had in the USA. Granted, that's a small thing, but the difference in attitude massively changes your perception of other people.

      In Dublin Passport control officers look at your passport, look at you and then wave you through. The impression there is much more of "does this person match their passport? Yup, OK, off they go" rather than getting the Spanish Inquisition.

      In Geneva the passport guy barely glanced at me before waving me through. Yeah it was a bit lax but you don't feel like they're actively trying to find an excuse to take you to the room marked "additional screening".

      On pretty much every flight to/from a US airport I've had some grumpy TSA agent giving me lip, seeming completely disinterested when I have to give them something or asking questions in a tone of voice which says they're damn sure I'm dodgy despite never actually pulling me over for anything. That sort of attitude in an environment where you know they can refuse you entry to the country with a flick of a pen and cause you major hassle while you're surrounded by a "police processing pen" vibe and posters saying "We are the front line of defence of our nation" do not make a pleasant atmosphere, which inevitably makes people grumpy or view things in a more negative manner. A professional attitude or even one where it doesn't seem like they're actively trying to find something which they can pounce on you for would do the TSA a lot of good. The last time I flew through the US I was getting the impression that they are actively trying to find anything at all, no matter how tiny or irrelevant, to screw you over with, which is not what security is meant to be about.

    7. Re:TSA ? by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Nice civil servants. Nice cops. Courtesy. Attitude.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    8. Re:TSA ? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      And I am **NOT** driving across the Midwest again if I have to visit my mom in Michigan. (There's a reason why it's called "flyover country".)

      Why not? It's beautiful here, and the ratio of narcissistic assholes is pretty low... of course, that might have something to do with the fact that those same narcissistic assholes refer to it as "flyover country." ... On second thought, keep flyin'.

      Guess we're stuck putting up with Homeland Security Theater 3000 for now.

      Stuck? No, you listed an alternative option, so it's not the rest of the world's fault you choose to submit yourself to airport bullshit.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:TSA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up in the Midwest back when the speed limit was 55 miles per hour. Try driving across I-70 at 55 miles per hour with lots of speed traps along the way and you will call it flyover country too. Now I am older and live on the west coast and spending 3 days of driving each direction just is not practical. So it is either put up with TSA security theater or not go at all. If I never drive across Kansas again it will be too soon.

  7. Not sure if serious. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Seriously.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  8. Misguided punishments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I found this piece ridiculous and am hoping there simply was more to these than the article summarized...

    "The report details one case of a TSA agent suspended for seven days after trying to carry a relative's bag past security without screening. A supervisor interceded and the bag was found to contain "numerous prohibited items," according to the GAO report. It didn't say what the items were.

    In another case, a TSA agent was suspended for 30 days after a closed-circuit camera caught the officer failing to individually examine X-ray images of passenger items, as required by agency policy."

    So failing to look the xrays gets you 30 days, but knowingly trying to smuggle prohibited items through security gets you 7 days suspension? Am I missing something here or is that insane?

    1. Re:Misguided punishments? by x181 · · Score: 3, Informative

      these all should be grounds for immediate termination and prison time.

    2. Re:Misguided punishments? by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    3. Re:Misguided punishments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found this piece ridiculous and am hoping there simply was more to these than the article summarized...

      "The report details one case of a TSA agent suspended for seven days after trying to carry a relative's bag past security without screening. A supervisor interceded and the bag was found to contain "numerous prohibited items," according to the GAO report. It didn't say what the items were.

      In another case, a TSA agent was suspended for 30 days after a closed-circuit camera caught the officer failing to individually examine X-ray images of passenger items, as required by agency policy."

      So failing to look the xrays gets you 30 days, but knowingly trying to smuggle prohibited items through security gets you 7 days suspension? Am I missing something here or is that insane?

      Well, most of the items that are prohibited pose no real threat, so sneaking a bag of prohibited but harmless items is a lesser offense than dereliction of duty.

  9. What did they expect? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    What did they expect when they replaced private security agents with government workers? When security was run by private companies, the government could make surprise inspections and fine the companies for violations -- who in turn would fire the employees responsible because fines eat into profits.

    When the government employs the workers *and* does the inspections, everyone knows what happens when you let the fox guard the hen-house.

    1. Re:What did they expect? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      If the article timeline is correct, things would have started turning bad about the time when the TSA started the unionization process. Originally they weren't unionized. Hard to believe government unions could be a negative influence.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:What did they expect? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      As if they ever did.
      The whole thing is a show, when you are paying for rent a cops that is what you get. Either they want security and will pay professional LEO wages or they don't.

    3. Re:What did they expect? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Do you not remember the reason why the glorious "private security agents" are no longer on the job? Something to do with 3000 dead New Yorkers, I believe. I used to get on the plane with hunting knives, friends carried loaded pistols onto the planes, and more often than not the x-ray machines and metal detectors were broken or just plain ignored. If you think that a lot of stuff gets stolen now you don't have a very good memory because it used to be a LOT worse. Miami was second worldwide only to Heathrow for the likelihood of having something stolen out of your luggage (they even took trivial shit, like candy bars.) Much as I may loathe TSA, I find it impossible to claim that they're worse or less efficient than what they replaced.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    4. Re:What did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to get on the plane with hunting knives, friends carried loaded pistols onto the planes, and more often than not the x-ray machines and metal detectors were broken or just plain ignored.

      Did you or your friends ever intend to hijack a plane or kill anyone on board, while on-board, with those items? If not, then depriving you and them of access to your own property doesn't make anyone safer. It violates your Constitutionally protected rights. The fact that the TSA blames the airline and the airline blames the TSA makes it worse, since we've lost any semblance of accountability, and trying to record evidence, a 1st Amendment explicit right, is trampled as well. The right to a fair trial is bypassed by the no-fly list as well.

      The TSA is an unmitigated disaster - a waste of time, money and tramples our liberties. They truly are the stazi (godwin!) as they remove freedoms and claim to just be doing their jobs. 9/11 could happen 10x a a year and still not exceed the annual traffic fatalities we take for granted each year. It would have to happen 5x a year to exceed the suicide rate. I was there, I breathed the smoke, but it's really not that big a deal, on a global scale among a population of 7 Billion. Banning "added sugar" would offset 100x 9/11s a year in terms of fatalities alone.

  10. not stealing/sleeping != not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they're ALL bad, they just aren't all thieves!

    one thing I've always wondered - what do their family/"friends" say about them? I'd be less ashamed of my kids if they were in prison - hell, I'd be less ashamed of them if they joined AQ (at least they'd be motivated & have principles, even if horribly misguided)...

    1. Re:not stealing/sleeping != not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one item at least "letting friends/family through without a screening" let's be honest with ourselves. We're mad that someone doesn't have to wait in the line with the rest of us. The guy knows his highschool pal isn't an Islamic terrorist, that his sister isn't smuggling C4, they've been screened by association, and so what exactly IS the point of making them wait in the line? Just to make you feel that it's all fair, because we will all get probed, rich and poor, black and white, alike? Lets not lump that in with stealing from people or taking bribes.

    2. Re:not stealing/sleeping != not bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Well, for one item at least "letting friends/family through without a screening" let's be honest with ourselves. We're mad that someone doesn't have to wait in the line with the rest of us. The guy knows his highschool pal isn't an Islamic terrorist...

      Why is it that statement reminds me of when Jeffrey Dahmer was captured?

      Oh, that's right, it's dead along the lines of the interviews with his neighbors and friends:

      "Such a nice, quiet boy."

      "Jeff? That guy'd never hurt a fly."

      "Known him for years, never would imagine he was capable of such horrors."

      Yes, let's be honest with ourselves, and admit that if a stranger is suspect, everyone you know probably is as well.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  11. No Follow-Up by ks*nut · · Score: 2

    The glaring fault that I found in scanning the GAO report is that there is no plan to follow-up on any of the cases where TSA employees are reprimanded. So they can issue letters of reprimand or whatever and there is no review process to make sure that the agent does their job correctly. And their job is to provide security?

  12. Buffer - and NO NOT $10,0000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When I travel, I like to have cash on me and cash in the bag.

    Why?

    Just in case.

    Get pick pocketed - got your cash in the bag.

    Lose your bag? Got it on you.

    And travel sometime to places Latin America. NO CASH MACHINES.

    Geeze!

    AND in regards to the $10,000 in the bag - IF that happened that was stupid in many ways. For one, it raises immediate suspicion with the gun carrying and badge wearing grunts. You WILL be detained.

    Secondly, just losing it.

    Third, wire it.

    You carry cash for cabs, food, and the little things. Not everyone in the World has a card reader on their person or have it in their business.

    1. Re:Buffer - and NO NOT $10,0000 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I do the same, but I tend to carry large amounts of cash in sealed envelopes where a pick pocket will not get to it like my front pocket or zipped inside an inner pocket in a light coat I have zipped up. To me large is only 5-10% of the amount we are talking about here.

      I am aware of this need for cash, I like to go to Mexico and outside the tourist traps or big cities not a lot of places had ATMs and precious few take Credit Cards.

      I have never had trouble explaining it as vacation money, but i have never exceeded $5000 on my person in an airport. I normally split it between me and my spouse anyway.

  13. Not bad by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Misconduct cases involving TSA employees -- everything from being late to skipping crucial security protocols -- rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012.

    I would bet that any company as large as the TSA would be happy to have only 3,408 misconduct cases. There are about 55,600 TSA employees.

    About a third of the cases involved being late or not reporting for work, the largest single category of offenses.

    That would be about 1100 shift late or missed. Considering that there are 55,000 employees * 5 shifts per week * 48 working weeks/year = 1.32M shifts per year that would mean that the late/absentee rate was 0.008%. Any company would love that late/absentee rate. Most companies have rates upwards of 10%.

    About a quarter involved screening and security failures -- including sleeping on the job -- or neglect of duty offenses that resulted in losses or careless inspections.

    So about 852 incidents are security related. That would be 1 incident for every 64 employees. Considering that most offenders will repeat and some of the incidents are mistakes rather than willful that is less that 1% of employees being an issue.

    TSA employees are humans not robots ans they screw up some times; give them a break.

    The numbers rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012. That is an increase of 717 incidents. That is about 2 more incidents per day. Not bad for a company that has 55,000 employees covering hundreds of locations. That's the problem with small numbers; even small increases seem big.

    1. Re:Not bad by cusco · · Score: 1

      Oh, my garsh! A poster who understands numbers! Whatever is SlashDot coming to? :-)

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:Not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Misconduct cases involving TSA employees -- everything from being late to skipping crucial security protocols -- rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012.

      I would bet that any company as large as the TSA would be happy to have only 3,408 misconduct cases. There are about 55,600 TSA employees.

      About a third of the cases involved being late or not reporting for work, the largest single category of offenses.

      That would be about 1100 shift late or missed. Considering that there are 55,000 employees * 5 shifts per week * 48 working weeks/year = 1.32M shifts per year that would mean that the late/absentee rate was 0.008%. Any company would love that late/absentee rate. Most companies have rates upwards of 10%.

      About a quarter involved screening and security failures -- including sleeping on the job -- or neglect of duty offenses that resulted in losses or careless inspections.

      So about 852 incidents are security related. That would be 1 incident for every 64 employees. Considering that most offenders will repeat and some of the incidents are mistakes rather than willful that is less that 1% of employees being an issue.

      TSA employees are humans not robots ans they screw up some times; give them a break.

      The numbers rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012. That is an increase of 717 incidents. That is about 2 more incidents per day. Not bad for a company that has 55,000 employees covering hundreds of locations. That's the problem with small numbers; even small increases seem big.

      Whereas your problem is assuming they have a 100% detection rate of misconduct. That "That would be 1 incident for every 64 employees" is actually "That would be 1 incident provably caught for every 64 employees". I'd also wager that the lateness is not about being 2 minutes late, so the absenteeism is much worse as well.

      Detection rates are more likely 1%, it's 1.5 incidents PER employee. There isn't a privately run company in the world that would seek that, much less a security focused one. For a federally run security agency. So security for critical US infrastructure is on par with that of a McD's or Walmart loading dock. Seems about right.

    3. Re:Not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA employees are humans not robots ans they screw up some times; give them a break.

      Never. They have the power of of the state behind them. They can make you life miserable and throw you into the maw of the security process.

      They only way i'll let then have a break, is with these changes:

      No more security lines. ineffective. Go with the Israel model. Get a random check interview, id some questions then on your way.

      The "random" searches can be their invasive procedure. Less than 10% can fall into this,

      Airports / Borders only.

      Borders, pulled back to 1 mile. No more 100 mile bullshit.

      Clear identifiable process to address grievences. Should be able to remove/clear name in a months time. (no green card waiting times). e.g. get the fucking FBI out of drugs and back into investigation.

      No more secret lists

      Only security, no more drug busts.

      Oversite committee with substantial number of civilians (no political hacks) on it. With the power to fire w/ no re-hire.

      No more revolving door. Can't go from some private security company to head X in gov then back and repeats. Total divesture - no more Cheny / Hallibutton or Chernoff / body scanner.

    4. Re:Not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One case can and probably does include multiple incidents and incidents may not even be 'worthy' of a case until there are multiple. All your statistics are flawed.

    5. Re:Not bad by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Whereas your problem is assuming they have a 100% detection rate of misconduct

      I don't assume anything. I just look at the numbers.

      Detection rates are more likely 1%,

      Do you have any evidence to support this or is it just an assumption based on your bias?

    6. Re:Not bad by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      That is an assumption that is not supported by the information in the study. All your statistics are non-existent.

  14. The TSA took my freedom away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like the actors in this production of security theater.
    It is an army of mall security guards given real power without real training.

  15. President McCain strikes again by Kohath · · Score: 1

    They told me if I voted for John McCain we would see this kind of escalating government abuse. And they were right!

    1. Re:President McCain strikes again by ks*nut · · Score: 1

      The program was put in place by the previous occupant. I've given up defending the policies of the current occupant because he has placed the politics of greed ahead of anything else. TSA, just like the revelations brought out by Manning and Snowden, is the tip of a huge iceberg and it really sucks to be on the Titanic with the captain saying, "Full steam ahead!"

  16. Posting to remove moderation accident by crashcy · · Score: 0

    That is all.

  17. Well, it keeps by Thrill+Science · · Score: 0

    Well, it keeps bloggers like http://www.shinybadge.com/ (Tracking TSA Abuses) in business!

  18. Re:Flying for years, never any trouble by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Yeah, all 10000 of them, you fucking dumbass.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  19. Excuse me, sir, but you're doing that wrong. by AdamThor · · Score: 2

    From TFA:

    "I think John Q. Traveler should not so much be concerned, but take an active role in security," he said. "As they are willing to point out things we do wrong, we should be ready to report on the failure in their security operations, as well."

    Yeah, that'll work out well...

    --
    -- "Oh. This guy again."
  20. Tracked down the report by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Available here.

    A quick scan indicates it does not say exactly what news reports are claiming it does. The title gives a hint: "TSA Could Strengthen Monitoring of Allegations of Employee Misconduct".

    The media (including /.) has seized on one fact out of the report, that the number of misconduct investigations has increased about 27% (not 26% as reported), and erroneously concluded that the rate of misconduct at the agency has increased by 26% (e.g. the title of this /. piece). This conclusion is not necessarily *wrong*, mind you, but the data in the report simply doesn't give us any basis for drawing it. For one thing, one of the main criticisms of the report is that the TSA is not tracking the *outcome* of investigations. For all we know the increase is the result of a higher rate of investigation, or even the increase in the agency's head count.

    The whole point of the report is that the TSA has been so slapdash at tracking investigations of employee misconduct it doesn't know the degree which employees are violating policies or even the law. Consequently nobody really knows whether the rate of misconduct has gone up or down. That's damning enough to be going on with.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Tracked down the report by mapsjanhere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the headline should read "TSA cover-up of misconduct 26% less effective".

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
  21. false dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while I'm not defending the pre-tsa private rent-a-cops 9/11 wasn't their fault - as has been noted gazillions of times the hijackers did not smuggle any contraband through security. the fault lies with 1. the airlines for refusing to that point to lock the cockpits & 2. government at all levels for imparting the sheep mentality. the former was fixed in a matter of months & the later self-corrected on the 4th plane...

    I'm among the agency's biggest critics but I do acknowledge the need for their existence. my position is that they've done exactly ZERO to earn any credibility (quite the opposite) so any/all policies/procedures should be vetted by financially independent experts (!=Chertoff) who should have veto power. this "we can't tell you why we do anything b/c that would jeopardize security!" is BS of the Diebold variety!

  22. What about Obama by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

    Obama has declared the war on terror to be over. Since the TSA was created to fight that same war on terror, why is it still in existence? Should the USA still be hiring pirates to fight the war of independence?
    How much is he spending to fight a war that he has declared to be finished?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  23. government study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    normally i don't comment on transportation security administration but -
    letting friends/family through the checkpoints without screening is a security hazard. wow.

  24. Well sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They see Obama, Holder, & co. getting away with everything. Why wouldn't they think they're untouchable?

  25. And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about all of the stolen...er...confiscated pocket knives and multitools that are for sale on eBay as TSA seazures? Sorry, but if someone with a 3.5 inch or smaller pocket knife can hijack a plane, something is very very wrong, just as it was on 9/11 when planes were hijacked with boxcutters! Also, people have managed to get much larger knives, hatchets, and even M-80s past the TSA!!

    I think dogs trained to sniff out explosives in addition to ordinary metal detecters and luggage x-rays should be sufficient. No one should have to be groped or irradiated for nude x-ray pictures. This says all something that we all need to remember.

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin (1818).

  26. Only 26%? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    Funny, I would classify the TSA's very existence as "misconduct."

  27. And they wonder why the NSA makes us nervous by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    What's the diff between a Snowden-level Booze employee and TSA employees? The fact is, once your security state is big enough, it's hard to find quality help to staff it. I can guarantee you that lots of sociopaths-with-ambition are studying to become NSA contractors right now. They're going to get hired and they're going to get access. Are we supposed to just conveniently forget everything we've learned about human nature ??

    Creating a gigantic security apparatus with unlimited power staffed by contractors is the national security equivalent to programming while only thinking about the happy path of execution. It's a joke and a time bomb waiting to go off.

  28. Yeah, mother fuckers like you are causing problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at you fucking response, "It has I'm a shithead, asking for a full body-cavity search written all over it."

    I hope you enjoy your gropings!

  29. far underrated by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Except for one year, when I worked for seven months in NC, I *may* fly 1-2 times a year. In the last 12 years, I've had a) a pocket knife stolen from a checked bag, and b) a bottle of booze and candles, both intended as presents, stolen from a checked bag.

    Anectdotal, yes. But I have *zero* expectation that I'm unique, and if I've had this much stolen, well, how many things have others here had stolen out of checked bags? I'll wager it's a pretty damn high percentage, since the TSA got in.

                    mark