Lazy TSA Agents Let Thousands Of Bags Through Unscreened (But They Gotta See Us Naked)
from the feeling-safer? dept
While the TSA and the US government continue to insist that it's absolutely necessary to see passengers naked before they can get on a plane, it appears that not everyone in the TSA is so committed to such thorough searches. Apparently, the feds are investigating a group of 27 TSA agents in Hawaii who apparently just skipped over the part of their jobs where they were supposed to screen luggage. Instead, they just tagged the luggage, saying it was screened and let it go on planes.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To think those TSA goons are getting a show for free? Where's my right to make a profit off my performance art works. Why does the government hate Art so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laziness or civil disobedience?
There is something in the US constitution about unwarranted searches. I'm pretty sure it would apply if tested. In the meantime, I have to applaud these people if driven by motivation of civil disobedience.
If driven by laziness, well, it still shows surveillance doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
So explain again to me how the US Constitution doesn't apply.
Also, if someone blew up a boat and the same search procedures were subsequently applied on piers and docks, what will you say then?
I have the right to swim if I don't like it???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laziness or civil disobedience?
If it wasn't laziness it was because it interfered with a conversation, or a break, or a shiny object.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice track record they have going on there. Corruption, passiveness, incompetence and ineffectiveness.
What are they good for again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
stealing your stuff. There has been so much of it going on around the USA, it's not even a "IN YOUR FACE" article in mainstream news. Your lucky to get a small paragraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is also incredibly easy to stand on the outside taking potshots. Mike, would you care to take the time to elaborate your security plans for flying in the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Return Airport Security to pre-9-11 status. And insteady of treating terrorists like world powers and "going to war" against them, treat them like the common criminals they are.
There was nothing wrong security then and there was no need for Americans to be turned into common criminals who pay to be treated as such.
90% of the pissants screaming for better security at the airports RARELY get on airplanes. Maybe 4 or 6 times a YEAR tops. BUT those pissants scream for better security so those of us who used to fly 2-4 times a WEEK are now forced to waste time and money to feed an industry of perverts and criminals called the TSA.
If the TSA had any serious intentions of increasing security they wouldn't be harassing the business traveler that they see 2-4 times a WEEK, they would be concentrating on the guys they have never seen or rarely see. The guy there twice a week is obviously there for his JOB. The guy that they rare or never have seen before is more likely to be that "terrorist" they are looking for.
NOT one of the 9-11 bombers, NOR any one of the morons that have attempted since 9-11 have been frequent flyers. ALL of them have been idiots that fly 4-6 times a YEAR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Would you feel safe knowing the rest of the people on your flight weren't checked at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funnily enough I probably would.
We should be allowed to carry on anything to the plane (including hunting knives, etc) and it just shouldn't be an issue, right?
I'd certainly feel better knowing that my fellow passengers were armed instead of helpless victims against any terrorist smart enough to get a weapon through "airport security".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't care if anyone else has been checked befolre boarding. I worry more about getting killed on the ground by stray gunfire (from anyone, anywhere at anytime) than I would worry about anything happening to me on a plane. Why is it so important to you that people on a plane are checked but not people everywhere else? Is it only possible for people to use a knife on a plane but not anywhere else? WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most country's in the world were checking checked bags well before 9/11
"and carry on security should be limited to someone with a wand randonly running it over some parts of your body?"
Yes combined with metal detector gates
"We should be allowed to carry on anything to the plane (including hunting knives, etc) and it just shouldn't be an issue, right?"
No, but then again most country's would not let you carry weapons on a plane before 9/11 either
Notice the "most country's" in all the above, because before 9/11 USA did not do many of these things where rest of modern world did.
You see the one thing America does not want to admit, for years they put profits and convenience first and thought about safety and security...well never
Now to "make up" for it they have gone the other way, basically bolting,nailing and welding shut the barn door after the horse has fled
The only rules that really needed changing were
* Locked, reenforced cockpit doors (ffs forget the terrorist, worry about the wackos getting into the cockpit, it was much more likely)
* Banning of all weapons like gun's/knives from flights unless in cargo hold (and no nail clippers are not a weapon)
* Standard metal detector scan on people
* Standard scanning of all luggage, carry on or hold
Some people think pilots should also be armed, but to those i ask the follow, armed terrorists suddenly try to take over a plane
You have two choices,
a) Have a pilot, with a small amount of firearms/combat training, try to be hero at 30,000 by starting a gun fight in narrow pressurized cabin with you stuck between him and the "terrorists" (and remember, even if he only gets himself killed, he is the pilot of the plane you are currently on, hope you took flying lessons)
b) Have a pilot, safe behind a locked, reenforced door that he will not open under any circumstances, bring the plane to the nearest airport where the professional's can attempt to end the attack
Which do you pick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Other than firearms/explosives, sure.
Taking over a plane with a box cutter just isn't going to happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We should be allowed to carry on anything to the plane (including hunting knives, etc) and it just shouldn't be an issue, right?
Other than firearms/explosives, sure.
Taking over a plane with a box cutter just isn't going to happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The boxcutters used by the 9/11 hijackers were plastic (still lethal) but enough to intimidate people playing by the "just comply" script in place then.
Between 9/11 and those damn snakes on the plane :-) no plane full of people would simply "comply" any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Most civilians who carry knives know how to use them effectively. Therefore, if someone with nefarious intentions does get on the plane, they're more likely to be put down/apprehended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What the hell? What world did I wake up in this morning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sayin. Usually I never get much past the "little mikee" part, before my scroll wheel is rolling, actually read the whole post today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like me, I'm freaking DEEP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A cost/benefit/risk/drawback analysis for each system or process coupled with a basic understanding that there is no way to make any system or combination of systems 100% effective.
Also an understanding that you can easily a/ Go broke and b/ Turn into the very thing you're supposed to be defending against by trying and that those are a far greater risk than (barely mathematically distinguishable from zero) risk of an "incident".
Then an implementation of systems and processes that prevent and/or discourage as much as possible without having egregious effects on what the US tout as the very basis of their country and most of the west consider equally to be basic rights and ideally without raising taxes sky high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We know the risks: Carry on weapons, carry on bombs, bombs in checked luggage. Those are the major issues. Now, knowing the issues, what do you propose? Try to answer without a buzzword.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's just stop right there. Because that's a lie. Everyone does NOT know the risks. They know what they hear bandied about with the same "buzzwords" you're upset about.
So, since you apparently DO know, what is the risk of being harmed by a weapon/bomb on a plane? What were the risks pre-9/11 and post-9/11.
And when your research ends up confirming that we all should have better freaking things to think about than the miniscule threat of terrorism, try REALLY hard not to start spouting off bullshit to cover up your mistake....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the system has been shown overall (and not just the random fuck up) to be completely worthless for stopping, it's no longer nit-picking to find fault.
For my part, I don't hate the TSA. They could be a force for preventing additional plane-based bombings. They could be a lot of things, but what they're doing in the name of security is intrusive, unnecessary, demonstrably not effective and possibly unconstitutional.
For what it's worth, I rarely fly, and I see it as a huge problem. It's one of the reasons I try to take the trains in the dense Northeast corridor rather than get of a jet anywhere - not because jets are dangerous (they're not) but because I've no desire to be gate-raped for the crime of having bought a ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silliness
I assume you are jesting, otherwise we simply have to assume you are naive or stupid... or both.
Other instances have been pointed out and this is simply the tip of the iceberg. I suspect even more instances and corruption will come out.
It's naive to think that this is an isolated instance.
"It is also incredibly easy to stand on the outside taking potshots. Mike, would you care to take the time to elaborate your security plans for flying in the future?"
I suspect Mike's version of security wouldn't include unconstutional searches, invasive systems proven to be ineffective and lack of legitimate profiling.
We should be spending more time searching travelers who fit the profile and less time searching old people with urine bags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does the TSA want to see people naked?
I mean, those semi-metallic images from the Nudatrons seem like they'd appeal only to a very narrow audience of perverts, a subset, perhaps, of the tight-vinyl fetishists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does the TSA want to see people naked?
One must welcome our new robot overlords. OR ELSE.
Alternate version:
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Actually that would explain a lot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why does the TSA want to see people naked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why search for what is not there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why search for what is not there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why search for what is not there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]