Slashdot Mirror
Long TSA Delays Force Airports To Hire Private Security Contractors (popsci.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
TSA checkpoints caused 6,800 American Airlines passengers to miss their flights in just one week this spring, and the problem isn't improving. "Two years ago the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) offered $15,000 to anybody -- literally anybody -- who could come up with an idea to speed up airport security..." writes Popular Science. "They wouldn't say who won or for which idea, but since we're here two years later with longer wait times than ever, it's fair to say it hasn't lived up to the groundbreaking ideals of that call to action... Now in summer 2016, the TSA recommends arriving three hours early instead of a mere two."
So this spring the Seattle-Tacoma airport replaced many of the TSA staff with private screeners, although "Private security operates under strict direction from the TSA, and even those airports that heavily utilize private contractors still have a lot of TSA personnel in the back rooms..." according to the article. "The ability to do exactly what the TSA does, only faster and cheaper, seems to be the major draw." Now 22 U.S. airports are using private screeners, although the Seattle and San Francisco airports are the only ones with significant traffic.
The article also cites a Homeland Security report which discovered that investigators were able to smuggle a test bomb past security checkpoints in 67 out of 70 tests.
So this spring the Seattle-Tacoma airport replaced many of the TSA staff with private screeners, although "Private security operates under strict direction from the TSA, and even those airports that heavily utilize private contractors still have a lot of TSA personnel in the back rooms..." according to the article. "The ability to do exactly what the TSA does, only faster and cheaper, seems to be the major draw." Now 22 U.S. airports are using private screeners, although the Seattle and San Francisco airports are the only ones with significant traffic.
The article also cites a Homeland Security report which discovered that investigators were able to smuggle a test bomb past security checkpoints in 67 out of 70 tests.
Well, airport security is now something I consider before flying.
And I once chose a 24h bus trip over a 2h flight and airport security was one of the reason I made this choice. Price was similar.
DHS has declared elections to be critical infrastructure. They are planning on having elections run under DHS now.
How could you get rid of DHS now? Why is the Federal Government getting involved in elections for the first time in all of US history? I know I have a good guess as to why.
It's still idiotic at that. The thing that made another 9/11-style attack impossible was not the TSA, DHS, or even the strengthened cockpit doors. It's the fact that post-9/11 a hijacking doesn't mean an inconvenient side trip and valium-laced pizza. It means the plane is going to be flown into a building, killing everybody... unless people onboard stop it. Passengers have already ganged up and *killed* would-be copycats who've tried to break into airplane cockpits.
And it wouldn't matter a whit if the knuckle draggers could stop every single weapon going through security. The 9/11 attackers used box cutters, sure. Well, the last time I flew, I treated myself to a post-security breakfast of steak and eggs. The knife they gave me for my steak was not the best steak knife I've used. But it was perfectly cromulent to the task, would have made for a better weapon than box cutters, and would have been trivial to take from the restaurant and onto the plane. Or what if the terrorist simply had an accomplice get a job working as, say, a janitor post-security. Imagine the two most common cleaning chemicals, mixed, in a closed environment such as an airplane.
Imagine all the people...
The TSA hasn't caught any terrorists yet. It's expensive, intrusive, and useless.
The purpose of the screenings is not to "catch terrorists" but to deter the terrorists from even trying. I am not say that the TSA is effective, I am just saying that the lack of arrested terrorists isn't proof that they aren't.
Except every year there's a study published where the DHS or FBI or whoever tried to sneak stuff past the TSA, and >95% of it gets through.
Those are pretty good odds for a terrorist. If there really are that many just dying to get on planes and do whatever, surely some would try with those awesome odds. Either that, or all these terrorists are complete idiots.
And really, they'd have to be an idiot to try to get on a plane to try to cause terror. As many have noted, they could blow up something outside the security zone in an airport and probably cause more mayhem (since they could likely bring more explosives than they could ever get past security in a small bag). Or they could blow up something somewhere else -- like a bus, or a mall, or a crowd, or whatever. Or skip the bomb and do something less predictable... does no one remember after 9/11 when everyone was concerned about various "soft targets"? Like poisoning a water treatment plant for a city. Or blowing up a train track and derailing it. Or whatever. The media talked about this stuff on the news for months after 9/11, because if there were so many terrorists, that's the sort of stuff they'd logically go to, rather than trying to get through airport security.
And yet, no terrorists. No bridges or malls or trains or buses blowing up, no water being poisoned, etc.
If this huge number of terrorists ready to attack the U.S. actually exists, they must be complete morons who have a weird "airplane fetish" and are for some bizarre reason cowed into submission by the 5% chance they might have their bomb discovered by the TSA.
It makes no logical sense. Sure, it's not "proof" in the formal logic sense, but it makes the whole idea that there are this huge number of terrorists out there seem rather silly.
Why is the Federal Government getting involved in elections for the first time in all of US history? I know I have a good guess as to why.
Because, for the first time in US history, there's strong evidence that foreign governments are interfering with elections?
For that matter, I don't see why the notion of federal government getting involved in elections that select people who run said federal government to be unusual or worrisome. There are a bunch of constitutional requirements and laws pertaining to elections on the federal level - who should enforce them, if not the feds?
Security theater doesn't get people to fly. Bosses, prestige, or significant others who don't want to sit in a car for more than 5 hours gets people to fly (since 5 hours is usually about the cutoff to where driving can make more sense than flying if it only takes 5 hours to drive).
The cutoff, for me, is ~ 12 hours
I allow for 1 hour to get into the Airport (~35 to 45 minute drive) to allow for traffic. If it's a late night/early morning flight then this is less of a concern. I also then allow for 2 hours in the airport to get through security, etc. Then tack on another 1 hour or so in the airport on the other side (assuming a direct flight) getting your stuff, and getting out to a car and on your way. If it isn't a direct flight, then tack on another 1 to 2 hours just for waiting for the connecting flight. This adds up to between 4 to 6 hours where you could be driving directly to your destination, not including flight time.
For example, from Boston to Knoxville you can:
1. "Fly" for 8.5 hours (4 hours airport, 4.5 hours flight time), pay for a rental (or taxi and public transportation), pay for plane tickets, and watch a movie or read a book while getting there.
2. Drive for 11 to 14 hours (depending on your driving style), have your own car, leave and stop when you want, bring as much crap as you want both to the destination and home with you, etc.
Granted, for most people, the 4 hour airport experience and 4.5 hour flight time is worth it because they don't enjoy driving enough to be a in car for 12 hours. They still see that as worse than the Airport/Airplane experience. Personally, I enjoy driving. Don't get me wrong, I like flying too. I've traveled internationally enough to have gotten good at it. But for destinations around 12 hours away by car, I would rather drive.
And yes, I've thought about this way too much... (grin)