TSA Agents Caught Stealing From Passengers & Helping Subordinates Steal As Well
from the feeling-safer? dept
jsl4980 alerts us to a TSA supervisor who has now admitted to regularly stealing from passengers at his security checkpoint at Newark airport. Not only that, but at least one subordinate also stole from passengers, and the supervisor knew about it -- just requiring a kickback of some of the stolen loot to keep quiet. Over the course of about a year, they stole somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000 from passengers. Feeling safer about flying yet?And, it turns out that's not the only such situation. Another article points out that some TSA agents at nearby JFK airport were able to steal approximately $160,000, including $39,000 from a single passenger. Nice to see that these are the people supposedly "protecting" us from those who wish to do us harm...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As the old saying goes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few bad actors work for the TSA, so let's get rid of the TSA, they are bad. 90% of torrent traffic is pirated material, but torrents are good.
Mike, there are bad actors in almost every thing in life. The TSA has over 58,000 employees. You honestly don't think a few bad apples get mixed into the bunch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have security that asks you to take off your belt, shoes and clothes in a scanner that can cause cancer risk to increase.
You have people grope you because it's standard policy...
They can have police come in and take you away from a flight for no other reason than saying no...
Now you have confirmed data that they can steal your items?
Have you not realized that the temptation of abuse of power is greatly increased through these actions? Or is it all because of some weird fantasy to be against personal freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Saying that Mike said something that he did not say: check.
Making up statistics: check.
Comparing apples and oranges: check.
Astroturf Detected. Ignoring in 3...2...1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The stats are not made up. You fail again.
I think for your post more as a question of: "ignore the message, slam the poster in 3...2...1..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, he believes copyright protection to be too strong and inefficient, industries that rely on it to make ends meet outdated and blind, and the technology neutral but potentially very, very good. Then he notes that it is also capable of being used badly. Nothing inconsistent there, either: the few bad apples merely prove up the neutrality of the technology and the ineffectiveness of copyright protection. (Just like rampant theft by government police officers with a right to detain and sequestor personal property proves the ineffectiveness of oversight and "TSA-approved" luggage locks).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First Post:
"Mike's points of view.
A few bad actors work for the TSA, so let's get rid of the TSA"
Second Post:
"Mike routinely refers to the work of the TSA as "security theater" and questions their actions at every turn. He doubts that they are effective, he doubts they do any good, and he feels they are a waste of time, effort, and money."
So did Mike say "get rid of the TSA" or did you LIE as usual by pretending he said something he didn't? BTW that's a rhetorical question you lying shilltard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I ignore that, and also apply a brick to my forehead, I think I might start seeing your point. But I'm gonna need a lot of booze to be able to absorb all the specifics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The issue is that most of what they are doing does not protect people. And all to often those "special powers" are being used to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be trying to protect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Torrents don't take nude pictures of me, grope little girls, or "scatter" me with isotopes which make rocks glow in the real world.
If there's a comparison here, TSA is clearly the loser.
Oh, and torrents don't take money, either.
>:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Congrats to the winners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.mickeysplace.com/images/Isotopes.JPEG
(yes its safe for work)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 17th, 2011 @ 6:52am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad TSA!
Ionizing radiation or an invasive and arguably illegal groping, or you don't get to fly. OK, I choose to not fly. Guess what that does to the airlines' profits if a significant percentage of Americans finally figure out that they are cattle being herded to the slaughterhouse?
Whereas torrents are used routinely for legitimate distribution of both free and purchased software, the TSA is completely illegitimate, as well as ineffective, illegal, and staffed by the morally bankrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bwah!!???! His rhetoric might have talked about shrinking govt., but his public policies were something else:
1. As Governor of California, he oversaw the largest tax increase in state history
2. He allowed the military budget to absolutely EXPLODE as President
3. He reversed several of his tax cut programs
4. He expanded the War on Drugs
5. The Federal Govt. overall EXPANDED under his watch
6. He saved Social Security in 1983 by VASTLY expanding it
7. He Expanded the Presidential Cabinet
8. Reagan NEVER cut the federal budget, he only slowed its expansion
9. An additional 61k federal workers were added to the payroll under him
10. He put in place the gas tax in 1993
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Checks in front of people
While the theft is disturbing, I'm curious how much stuff gets damaged by TSA hastily rifling through a suitcase, then not bothering to put things back properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Checks in front of people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
I love Techdirt. This post is just bitter sounding, and not up to the usual standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
It seems the government uses this logic, so why not? I mean out of the millions of airplane passengers every year only a small handful are terrorists, yet TSA, et al. treat all passengers as potential terrorists, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?
It is easy to get caught up in all the hype and hoopla going on around this, and to fall victim of the catch phrases and snarky attacks on the TSA, but they are doing a job that is both important and useful.
Without them, I doubt very many Americans would consider flying safe enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Mandatory pat downs of all TSA employees as they leave their shift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
It is a useful suggesting, and thanks for making it. It adds a nice dimension to the discussion that few seem to consider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
A mandatory pat down and/or backscatter check because they might be hiding stolen items on their person under their clothing. Making the TSA Agents put all items in a bin for inspection and asking simple questions like, "Is this your iPad, cell phone, laptop computer, etc...?" and "Do you have a receipt or any other way that you can prove these items are yours?" would be fun for some. Heck, you might even have people who would be willing to pay for the opportunity to do such a thing to a TSA agent. Kind of like a "Dunk the Clown" ball toss at the state fair. Think of all the extra money airports could generate from such a "E Ticket" (as in Disneyland).
If they won't submit to the inspection, they're always free to stay in the terminal. No one is making them leave. Plenty of bathrooms, food courts, ATMs, and plenty of comfortable chairs/benches to sleep on. They certainly won't have to worry about being late to work anymore because when they wake up... well, you get the picture.
Passengers get checked going in (because you might be a terrorist), TSA [and other airline workers] get checked going out (because you might be a thief). Perfect symmetry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Couldn't the government always say under any circumstance "We don't know. We're just doing this little search to check."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
To violate your 4th amendment rights would require something like handcuffing you, taking you to an interrogation room, locking you there for 48 hours without charge, and then refusing you entry without reason. Until things head down towards that direction, your 4th amendment rights aren't in danger, except perhaps from your own hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
That's probably true....but cares? Honestly, if the way to measure any success of the TSA is by how safe people FEEL, then that should tell you everything you know. Every time I hear a politician talk on TV about how people want to feel safe, I want to find that person and slap them.
I couldn't care less how people feel. I care how safe they ARE. This is why the TSA should be subject to measurable review. If you can't demonstrably prove that what you're doing is working, you must stop doing it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Actually, isn't the the most effective tool against terrorism, removing the "terror" part? If people feel less afraid, are they not less the victim of terrorism?
Remember, terrorism isn't just actual bombs blowing up or actual people dying or being hurt, but rather the fear that you are next. Anything that works to lower that level of fear and return the Western world to a more normal state of affairs is a victory over the horrible effects of terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Fair question, but then you tackle the problem by getting people to wake up and realize that things aren't as dangerous as they're pretending them to be. You don't feed into the fear by putting in place lame false security. Do you really think the presence of all this security equipment makes people feel MORE safe? It's justification for their fears, not the removal of them.
Honestly, I'd LOVE to see a study about the heartbeat rate of people going through the airport when they encounter security. I'd bet it goes way up....
"Remember, terrorism isn't just actual bombs blowing up or actual people dying or being hurt, but rather the fear that you are next. Anything that works to lower that level of fear and return the Western world to a more normal state of affairs is a victory over the horrible effects of terrorism."
But that's the thing, we aren't returning to normal, we're moving to something new and strange. What the TSA is doing now isn't SOP, therefore it's an inch in the terrorist's favor....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
The alternative, nobody flying, is way more than an inch in their favor.
Remember 9/11? Do you remember all those planes grounded? All those people stranded? I do. I got trapped in Vegas, not so bad, I guess. That was more than an inch. That was a mile.
Poeple too scared to fly would be way more than an inch, it would be a football field.
The TSA "inch" is way better than the alternatives, and the public knows and understands it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
You look at the whole airport security and see that since TSA, we haven't had another hijacking. This is not because of the TSA.
The real reason why hijacking will never occur, is because the passengers can no longer reach the cockpit.
The bigger concern it that all this TSA security theater will cause passenger awareness to lax. That's the biggest threat to security.
You "feel" safe, you you tend to ignore signs of danger. Everything is safe, right? TSA makes it so nothing bad can get on planes, right?
Meanwhile people are boarding planes with handguns, or 12 inch razor blades.
Wake up America. We need to take charge of our own security, not let the nanny-state tell us we're safe or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Wouldn't the most appropriate "normal state of affairs" be resolutely continuing to respect citizen's freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
The problem is there is no public oversight, they focus on protecting us from irrational Hollywood terrorism plots, there is very little emphasis on real security, and if you question their methods, you get your name on a secret watch list.
Again, I have nothing against security measures, I oppose the security theater the DHS insists on performing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Guards/Security - Check
Metal Detectors - Check
Screening - Check
Police - Check
So what has the TSA really added, expect 58,000 people on the government rolls...
Its a serious question - how has the TSA done one thing that is better/smarter/faster/safer than it was being done before with out the added cost to government at 58,000 employees/soon-to-be union workers...
Just like the argument for the back-scatter - it would have stopped the underwear bomber - but if you look at the facts it would not have done 1 thing - WHY - the underwear bomber was flying TO America so he didn't go through the TSA anyway...
I am all for things that work, do things better/cheaper/faster and/or efficient - but so far all i can find with the TSA is a pit of bureaucracy that sucks more and more money from the tax payers, and causes headaches with traveler not terrorists....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
Umm...where are the conclusions? Beyond describing the specific incidents, I see two additional comments from Mike - neither of which makes any suggestion that we should get rid of the TSA. He asks if these incidents make you feel safer (do they?) and points out that these people are supposed to be protecting us.
Now, I understand you read the post and think it targets the TSA to put the entire organization in a bad light. But it is not this post (which is almost entirely factual information and has no conclusions). It is the incident itself that is making the entire TSA look bad.
Should we not report on any crimes unless they are perpetrated by more than some specific percentage of a group?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
why, yes, actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
The real problem isn't that TSA agents are stealing. That's bound to happen. The problem is that they can get away with it for so long before being caught. There is little to no oversight and a virtually non-existent ability to complain about potential "bad actors" without missing your flight and possibly getting arrested. As scarr mentioned above, bag inspections should be done in front of the passenger. I also think independent evaluation of screening equipment should be performed by disinterested third parties and there needs to be a far better process in place for filing complaints.
I don't think many of us are after disbanding as much as we are after accountability. The "feel safer yet" question could probably be better phrased as "Since the TSA doesn't think they're doing anything wrong and won't allow oversight, do you really feel safer flying than you did before the TSA?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?
----- +1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bribed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of stealing...
I saw recently (probably here) that someone was selling t-shirts and underwear with messages to the TSA in ink that would show up on the scanners. If the message is unique and expressive enough, have they violated copyright law by taking a picture of it?
Sorry everyone for the total tangent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
39k?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 39k?
Have they been charged with prostitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who guards us from the guards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is only partly true. If the fear changes your way of life they also win.
The TSA is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment and should be abolished! What should happen is Airports and Airlines should be REQUIRED to HIRE security companies to handle matters of security both on board and at the airport. This would be legal, since the airline can say want to fly you need to meet these conditions, so it is not the government doing search and seizure. It may seem a small point but our forefathers were far smarter than people give them credit for.
The terrorists have already learned that now that the American people know they are going to die if terrorists are allowed to control the plane the passengers will take it down themselves. They have little interest in attacking planes, they are much more interested in poisoning your drinking water, food supply, or drugs maybe setting off a "Dirty Bomb" on US soil.
You may recall the recent rash of food and drug contamination? Do you really think that many in that short of a time period were by chance? (I think not, it was testing for something bigger to come).
Now go ahead and tell me to put on my tin hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RERERERE....Seriously?
When a journalist or blogger chooses to report on a story, he or she has already made a judgment call that the story is relevant. Because of the established theme of Techdirt, and because of its normally high standards when issues of the TSA's policies and procedures are discussed, I feel strongly that the inference is clear: a couple of underpaid TSA agents stealing from passengers is evidence sufficient quality and relevance to include with the more substantial arguments.
I simply feel differently. I feel that we should hold ourselves to higher standards of debate. These stealing incidents are isolated, and unless someone is going to make a claim that they represent the consequences of TSA policy, they are not worth including in what is otherwise a very solid and intellectually honest debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Potential for Massive Corruption in the TSA
If the TSA begins to develop layers of baggage-stealing and kickbacks, this has the potential to spread, to the point that the TSA officer in charge of a major airport would be pulling down millions of dollars a year in kickbacks, and becoming personally wealthy in a short period of time. The TSA mob will become massively impervious to criticism, to the point that the TSA agents will be openly taking small sums of cash from every passenger's wallet. Twenty dollars here, forty there, taking all fifty or hundred dollar bills as a matter of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft Opportunities
The checked baggage searches, out of your view, definitely add a new world of opportunity for thievery. Used to be just the baggage handlers got in on the action. And you could lock your bag -- maybe even with a lock that was good enough to divert their attention to the next one. Now you can't lock your bag. Well, you can lock it, but only with a lock that is built with a universal master key. Which is almost the same thing as not locking it . . .
But now checkpoint "opportunities" are greatly enhanced, too. Not just for "security" but anyone with enough nerve. Luggage is frequently out of view, particularly if you're being run through the naked scanner or grope-down. And even if you see your bag/coat/laptop getting pinched, if you take off to go kick ass and take names you're gonna get tackled and arrested and punished for [insert whatever crime they call it here].
I went through an airport with my wife recently and got sent to the "enhanced" experience. I was basically detained (for all practical purposes) with all my carry-on stuff out of sight. And this is after being forced to empty all my pockets on the chance they wanted to take naked pics. So everything: luggage, computer, wallet, money, phone, etc. were just sitting there for the taking for about 5 minutes.
Do did my stuff get stolen? No, because my wife was there, and got through much quicker and grabbed all my things. Was I relieved? Yes. Except when we both realized that nobody had stopped her from grabbing all my things and taking off. She had two coats, twice the amount of baggage you could carry on, a man's shoes, and no one so much as asked if all that stuff was hers.
So the increasingly time-consuming, detaining and attention distracting nature of checkpoints is not just a bonus program for TSA employees, but the free-lance thieves among us as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Locking the door does not end all opportunities for terrorism, but it increases the cost of pulling one off. You can't do it with box cutters, you need to smuggle something more on board. Not impossible, but not as easy as it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We _do_ primarily charge the TSA with protecting person and property. In fact, the TSA itself sees its mission to be to "protect[] the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." I think it is a telling indictment of the TSA to note that it fails to do that, and in fact preys on the people and commerce whose freedom it is supposed to be protecting. I think rational people faced with that information should say, "at a minimum, we need to fix the system so that it is no longer predatory. We may need to scrap it altogether, and find a system that actually works without creating additional harm." Couple the theft problems with the fact that even honest TSA agents are ineffective at actually increasing travel security, and the indictment seems fairly damning.
How is it that pointing out that the system not only doesn't work, but also causes additional harm fails to contribute that the system should be substantially overhauled? That is not a rhetorical question - I honestly do not understand your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA theft
On the other hand, when I hear from Mrs. Napolitano-- privately and incontrovertibly identifying herself -- I will disclose the name of the airport and a description of those -- likely an organized clique whose jobs allow them to be party to the thievery of genuine opportunity -- who were involved in an attempted institutionally-enabled theft I narrowly escaped. (I suppose it’s a small enough thing, encouraging the flying public to travel with nothing of value –where possible – but should one be a sitting duck to be picked off of whatever can be gleaned in the field?)
In the interim before an unlikely official contact from DC(or at least hopefully do thinking of ‘no-fly’ lists), I will pose two questions to the readership: 1) What happens to all the dangerous confiscated goods, particularly the good perfumes, shampoos and other expensive personal use products, very often packed in error but likely not dangerous when in the hand-luggage of a middle-aged, frosted blonde with a NJ accent and wearing mink, and 2) if only as a revenue production item, why does the TSA not provide a sort of business reply envelope/packaging, postage due, so that one can choose to mail the offending item home, to go by common carrier if necessary -- as much mail does. This might be a real money-maker!
One, if bent on trouble, could easily mail a dangerous item to cause a harmful explosion without the trouble of packing a bag, dressing and going to the airport.
When mailing a package at the Post Office, one is asked if there are dangerous contents; if one tried to carry on such an item(s) illegally when flying, would one hesitate to mail such a thing?
As to protection from terrorists, the Israelis do it better with profiling and interviews, but they don't have our millions traveling --but they are safer and I expect citizens feel better protected from both trouble and pilfering than we do.
Perhaps, in the way of the long-practiced social engineering*, all the hassle is meant to drive the traveling public to other routes --to revivify train service?
(* Think mortgages as a deductible expense post-WWII–and now at a later and different time, think mortgages again.)
Will this post impact my ability to obtain a ticket –*and fly with it* -- in the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, how people feel is important. Is the public perception of the economy important? Of course it is, if people don't feel secure, they won't spend money and the economy will get worse.
Course, even if people feel safe, they won't feel that way for long if planes start flying into buildings again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]