Slashdot Mirror
Confessions Of an Ex-TSA Agent: Secrets Of the I.O. Room
Jason Edward Harrington has seen some of the same frustrations, misgivings, and objections that have crossed the mind of probably every commercial airline traveler who's flown over the last decade in the U.S. One difference: Harrington got to see them from the perspective of a TSA agent. His description of the realities of the job (including learning the rote responses that agents are instructed to reassure the public with) is wince-worthy and compelling. A sample makes it clear why the TSA has such famously low morale, even among Federal agencies: "I hated it from the beginning. It was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly and even infants as part of the post-9/11 airport security show. I confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security. I was even required to confiscate nail clippers from airline pilots—the implied logic being that pilots could use the nail clippers to hijack the very planes they were flying." It only gets worse from there.
Glad to know the only two times I ever went through the scanners (I travel for work frequently) that maybe somebody did see me flipping the double bird. Even happier that the on last several dozen trips my wife and I live by the words 'opt out'. Several agents have commented to me readily while feeling me up and violating my privacy that what they were doing was completely useless. In one case I was told by an agent that he felt up the CEO of the company that makes the current machines, who refuses to use them for himself or his family.
Time to get rid of the TSA, the only organization that can still get funding with a 0% success rate.
Nobody would need to do that. If everybody opted out of the scanners, the same effect would be achieved. However, you'd be shocked (or maybe not, given that your premise is 100% correct) at how many Americans think the TSA in its current form is good and necessary for safe air travel. Slashdot and the like might be a circlejerk of anti-TSA sentiment, but that's absolutely not public opinion - reinforced every day by the people that choose to put up with that shit.
In the past, I opted out 100% of the time, for three reasons: 1. I don't trust the safety of the scanners, as the test data is not public; 2. I think the scanners are overly-intrusive; and 3. I WANT that TSA morale to stay low, to have employees bitching about the 1000th guy they had to feel up that day, while doing my part to slow down the line and hope that the delays in aggregate piss people off enough to all be sick of it.
In my old age (read: parenthood), the TSA and I have struck a compromise with some help from CBP and CBSA - we joined NEXUS and now get Pre-Check almost 100% of the time. That, to me, is a fair compromise. It's almost pre-9/11, with the theatrics minimized, and all I really gave up was data the government already had on me and my family anyway - I mean that pessimistically in the sense that it was going to be collected with or without my knowledge, and also in the factual sense that my past employment with the government resulted in far more thorough investigations than anything CBP was going to do for a trusted traveler program.
I can live with this arrangement if TSA is relegated to "hands on" screening of high risk (actual high risk) passengers and letting the rest of us get to where we're going. The pre-check program is a step in the right direction, but I'd also argue that my existing tax dollars should cover it and people shouldn't have to pay to enroll. For something like NEXUS that's cross-border, yeah I think the $50 I paid is reasonable, but for pure domestic it needs to be part of TSA's existing budget. /incoherentrant
Oh, and a related set of facts I thought I should mention, just for safety and the odd chance's sake.
Discharging a firearm in an aircraft may not be likely to cause dangerous and immediate cabin depressurization, but there's still a ton of vital stuff that keeps you flying (and landing minus large fireball and crater!) that doesn't play well with getting shot up.
It's a bad idea, period. Unless lives are at stake, don't do it.
That being said, if you're on an aircraft and some surreal turn of events happens to cause you or someone else you have influence over to absolutely *have to* discharge a firearm while flying in an airliner, try to avoid lines of fire that intersect the wings/engines (and the fuel tanks they contain, although a small-caliber round is unlikely to cause a fire/explosion/sudden fuel loss), the cockpit area (obviously), directly aft through the tail (avionics/autopilot/comms/cabin air pressure pumps/etc) and down through the deck you're standing on (more avionics/flight control/comm/nav/etc, fuel tanks, and landing gear).
Avoid the instinct to consider "down" (cabin deck) a safe default direction for discharging a firearm purposefully or accidentally in an aircraft cabin. If anything, "up" (cabin ceiling) would be preferable.
Of course, avoid windows. Easy one to remember for most Slashdotters. :)
Exact locations will vary by aircraft make/model/etc, but that's a pretty good general rule-of-thumb layout.
Again, if there's any choice, do not discharge any firearm in an aircraft in flight. Too easy to fall down go BOO000OOM!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.