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.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/19/airports-are-fed-up-with-tsa-heres-why-it-will-be-hard-to-break-up-with-them.html
Especially to the fact that these private companies are hired by the TSA
Obviously since something is easy and sensible it will never be done but for 15K I'll take a whack at it.
To speed up the lines, get rid of the TSA.
It's that simple.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Now in summer 2016, the TSA recommends arriving three hours early instead of a mere two.
Drive to your destination -- even if it's overseas.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Because then they don't have power over us and they can't whine that they need all sorts of extra funding. They also refuse to return to only using the magnetometer instead of the nudie scanners or they insist on groping everybody's privates. And yet they are as effective as Walmart door-greeters when it comes to actual security. So why don't we just hire Walmart door greeters with the magnetometer to use, and be done with it?
Yes how entitled of us to expect that the TSA improve their procedures as time goes on, instead it gets even more inefficient! Last I checked us entitled slashdot users can't drive to Hawaii or any other place outside the continental US. But hey, thanks for your valuable input TSA agent.
I have to disagree with you on one of your suggestions. Get rid of DHS too. The only thing DHS and TSA both accomplish is abusing the constitutional rights of American citizens on a daily basis. Neither organization has done anything to actually improve security. For starters, just look at how many TSA employees have breached security or been caught stealing from luggage. And how about the DHS confiscating laptops and phones at the border.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
You wont get any argument from me that DHS is too large and is abusing the powers of the Patriot Act, which should have never been extended. Once the Patriot Act goes away the DHS will not be able to (legally) maintain its current size and scope. The general idea of it is less flawed than its implementation with overreach. And having ICE under DHS, where not only do we not address exploitation of undocumented aliens, as well as software/music/movie copyright infringement? WTF? Rehaul it without a doubt.
Here's a better idea: go fuck yourself.
The TSA hasn't caught any terrorists yet. It's expensive, intrusive, and useless. Not only that, since a perp could just wander into the midst of several thousand people and blow them up while the TSA is making them stand in serpentine lines waiting for the bullshit obedience ritual, the TSA is only increasing the danger to the traveling public.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
wasn't that one of the reasons given for forming the TSA in the first place? Better efficiency? The TSA was going to replace those inefficient, untrained, low paid knuckleheads with....inefficient, untrained HIGH paid government knuckleheads. All the while, they would create another bureaucratic tar pit with a multi-billion dollar annual budget.
Folks - this is why our infrastructure is falling apart and our schools are going to shit. It is not because there is not enough money. It is because of how the money gets spent. There is zero accountability. The TSA is yet another perfect example of this. It is a failed experiment. Were this a private company it would be abandoned, with a follow up study and lessons learned. In government they just throw more (of our) money at it.
This is why whenever the government wants to launch yet another massive program (be it Obamacare or what have you) I am flatly against it. Why? Because they have shown time and time again that they are incapable of managing anything of scale without it turning into a bottomless pit.
No need to scare them away. After 9/11 nobody expects a hijacking to be a flight to Havana and an inconvenient delay. Passengers will kill the next terrorists before they can get into the cockpit or light their underpants on fire.
Have gnu, will travel.
I know a guy who couldn't hold a job even at Target, Wendy's, corner gas station... Now he works for the TSA.
He's not making fat cash, but this is a guy who wasn't even capable of working at Target as a shelf stocker and now he's working at security checkpoints. If I thought the TSA actually did anything I'd be horrified.
And they're union (I don't think union is automatically bad, but government and union is the worst possible combo), so performance is a joke and he can't get fired short of doing something blatantly illegal (and maybe not even then). Luckily he's just dumb, not crooked, but there are plenty of low class criminals working for TSA. Sometimes they even get caught.
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.
Exactly. This and the lock on cockpit door is all that was needed.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
To speed up the lines, get rid of the TSA.
Even if the TSA is practically useless, at least it scares away most people having bad intentions, including terrorists.
This is easily tested. Pick one major airport and remove TSA screening from it. Fall back to standard security such as metal detectors and explosive particle detectors as people walk through. Let people bring toothpaste and bottled water. Finally, count the number of successful terrorist bombings/hijackings that happen through that airport over the next year. If it's zero, expand the experiment.
Frankly the TSA could continue to draw their paychecks by simply charging a "TSA-free" surcharge at the airports they're not at.
I'm a simple guy, but it's nerve-wracking passing through US airports simply because I realize that all it takes is someone to misunderstand a gesture, or to mis-hear something I say that rhymes with something naughty ("no, officer, I said 'get your Mom', not 'set your bomb'!") and I'll end up missing my flight, plus get stuck on some "person of interest" list for life. The most negative thing I have any interest in doing while in a US airport is leave the country, but still I'm nervous.
"Oh no... he found the
At least SFO and few other airports no longer require to take off your shoes.
BTW If you want a check to be deterrent you can simply just use it on 10% of the passengers. Like the shoe check for example. Uncertainty is still sufficient deterrent and it will speed up the lines quite a bit. I would even go as far as simply just screen 10% of the passengers for anything. The checks could be much more thorough, just like we do with the customs. There is no reason why the model that works for customs should not be replicated for the security checks.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Flight 93
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
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...
...Buy more explosives checkers, and get ones so sensitive they'll detect the explosives inside a firearm cartridge loaded inside a gun. Don't look for the metal. Look for the cartridge.
In any system, there are always two complementary failure modes. We call these "type 1" and "type 2" errors. For example, a switch can fail open (does not conduct when it should conduct) or closed (conducts when it is not supposed to conduct).
For a detector, the error types are "false negative", failing to detect an explosive that is there, and "false positive"-- detecting an explosive when one is not there.
It's easy to make a detective super sensitive. Of course, this means that the false positive rate will be astronomical.
Sounds like a very expensive tiger-repelling rock.
Terrorists are not normal people. They have super human powers. A pair of tweezers and a small bottle of water is all it takes for them to blow an Airplane out of the sky. How they do it is, of course, top secret.
That is why merely bolting the cabin doors is not sufficient. Every passenger needs to be thoroughly searched, inside and out. Just looking for guns and explosives is not nearly enough. A pair of tweezers hidden in a terrorist's shoe is all that it takes.
They're hiring actors for security theater.
To fly, or not to fly - that is the question:
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
90% of it is Security Theatre to get people flying. Politicians only care about what 50% + 1 of the voting public thinks and reacts to - not what actually works.
The only thing the TSA gorillas are achieving is to make tourists stop visiting the US.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
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.
That's exactly what I've been doing for the past few years. Avoiding the US. All my tourism and shopping dollars are going elsewhere.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Confirming that this is true. I used to go to the US at least once a year, every year. I haven't been for 5 or 6 years and I actively seek flights that bypass the US hubs.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Seconded, added to the fact that US Immigration seems unable to accept that some people actually come to the US for tourism or business and not to over-stay their visas. All-in-all, flying into, out of, and around the USA is a truly ghastly experience.
No need to do that. They could look at literally the rest of the world, most of which do not engage in the same security shenanigans as the US is.
To be fair to the GP, only a fucking retard signs a letter that puts their name and company at the top in the letterhead.
See how that works?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The only thing the TSA gorillas are achieving is to make tourists stop visiting the US.
Yeah. I used to really wanna go. Now? No fucking way. Definitely not on a holiday out of my own pocket, maybe for work if I got paid extra. Not just because of the TSA but a whole bunch of reasons.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So conventions of spelling, sentence structure and such don't apply on the internet?
You know, that explains SO MUCH.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I recently flew to Europe and the checks in Europe are reasonable and thus quite fast. In the US you have to get to a rather needless state of undress, pass soft x-ray machines, get a pat down, and potentially get elected for further search. In Europe, you can keep your shoes on, pass through a metal detector, and if that does not sound an alarm you grab your stuff and move on. All these TSA checks are totally over the top, time consuming, and with little to no effect beyond what was done before. Plus, plenty of times the checks are proven to be ineffective. Even worse is immigrations. In Europe they check your passport, if that does not come up on a list as flagged they wish you a good day and you are on your way. In the US, you get to fill out custom forms, then answer tons of questions at a kiosk, then scan in every passport document you may have, then try ten times until that automatic camera manages to take your picture, and if you happen to be a legal resident you get fingerprinted yet again. You get a receipt and then walk up to an officer who except for the picture does exactly the same stuff that they always did. So why did I have to fight for ten minutes with a badly designed kiosk app? All that does not curb any bad things from happening and only increases the lengths of the lines. So, how about US officials get their act together and keep only those checks that indeed accomplish something and get rid of everything else. Paying the TSA clerks more than minimum wage will also help. TSA is the largest government employment program the US has ever seen. A lot of money spent with not much to show for.
Perhaps you are caucasian and has rich man appearance
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Well, if the pilot wants to kill you, you're screwed. Duh. Anything else new?
There are certain things you cannot protect yourself against. But it is absolutely and positively certain that no terrorist passenger will EVER again crash land a plane in a building. It's just like the trojan horse. The first was a huge success. The trick hasn't ever worked since.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You may have an idea there...
How about the TSA stop checking people that don't need to be checked? If you're transiting from one (reasonably organised) country to another, then no need to go through security again (or go via a fast track that has less checks)? The US has special secure areas at some non-US airports because they have their own special checks - surely they are secure enough not to have to recheck all the people on transit.
Years ago, I traveled to Canada via the US with a buddy of mine. He got an extra frisk 3 times before we got to Security (in Heathrow, UK). Even though we were traveling together, I only got the standard check at security. I was left wondering what the first frisk missed that it needed repeating two more times just to be sure. Why not just train the first guy to be better at his job (and arguably frisk me at the same time) rather than have the other two goons?
If they've been running a competition for a 'solution' to their problems and haven't found a winner yet, then they aren't listening. There's got to be a thousand ways to improve whilst making them more effective and do so at less cost/inconvenience.
Not so much. For most foreign tourists, the real pain is passport control. I flew in to San Jose two weeks ago on a 789 from London. There were about two hundred non-US citizens in a single line to see a single border guard, who was taking an average 7 minutes to process each person. I was near the front and got away with only a 45 minute wait, but I shudder to think how long the folks at the back would have to wait. I'm sure that once the US citizens were all processed, the guards would start processing non-US, but I still think it would be a four or five hour wait for many. That is beyond ridiculous.
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.
There was a guy on a train with sheets of paper in his hand. Every so often he'd tear off a piece of paper, roll it into a ball and throw it out the window. Curious, I asked him why he was doing this.
He: "It keeps the tigers away."
Me: "Don't be silly there aren't any tigers here!"
He: "See! It works!"
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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)
Well, isn't that their job? Their whole mandate is to stop tourists! And they're damned good at it! They... Wait, what? "Terrorists?" They're supposed to stop terrorists, not tourists? Shit, somebody better tell them that...
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
And yet, no terrorists. No bridges or malls or trains or buses blowing up, no water being poisoned, etc.
Perhaps not in the US, but in Nice, France, there was recently that Tunisian fellow who drove a large truck through a crowd (on the sidewalk) for two kilometers, killing nearly 100 people, and injuring slightly over 200. Pretty good soft target: a diffuse crowd gathered for Bastille Day celebrations. Quite effective terrorism.
Then in the US, there was that couple in San Bernardino who shot up a Christmas party in 2015. Another effective act of terrorism on a soft target.
And the recent shooting in the night club in Florida.
And the Boston Marathon bombing.
Oh, and the ricin mailed to a senator and the US president.
(and there are more)
So what were you saying again?
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
It varies massively by airport. Going through Houston on a B777 or B787 from London, I get through passport control before my luggage reaches the carousel every time, and that's been consistent for years. Each non-US citizen passenger gets through in generally less than 2 minutes, and there's always many gates open, so even if you're at the back the wait isn't typically all that long.
Dallas Fort Worth on the other hand... I will never use DFW again.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows