Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
from the say-that-again dept
One of the politicians instrumental in creating the TSA, Rep. John Mica, who wrote the legislation that established the TSA, has apparently decided that the whole thing has been a failure and should be dismantled. He notes that "the whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats."“It mushroomed into an army,” Mica said. “It’s gone from a couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion.”There's a lot more at that link. Now, one could (and perhaps should) note that when Mica wrote the legislation, his particular political party was in power, and now it's not. So the cynical voice might say that his words are somewhat politically motivated. And one can (and probably should) ask how it was that Mica didn't expect this kind of result. This is what the government does. It creates agencies that are then "hijacked by bureaucrats." While it's nice to see him realizing this now, it's too bad he didn't see it back then.
As for keeping the American public safe, Mica says, “They’ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.”
“Everything they have done has been reactive. They take shoes off because of [shoe-bomber] Richard Reid, passengers are patted down because of the diaper bomber, and you can’t pack liquids because the British uncovered a plot using liquids,” Mica said.
“It’s an agency that is always one step out of step,” Mica said.
It cost $1 billion just to train workers, which now number more than 62,000, and “they actually trained more workers than they have on the job,” Mica said.
“The whole thing is a complete fiasco,” Mica said.
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
Mica fails to consider that any number of actions may not have occurred because people couldn't walk onto a flight with a bomb or a large knife. It is also impossible to prove the efficacy of the system, because if it deters someone from even trying, there is nothing to detect.
My idea: Get rid of the TSA entirely for 90 days. Announce the start and end dates. No security at all. Open the gates like we had back in the day, let people freely circulate around the airports, don't check anyone.
After the first few days of flying empty airplanes, I am sure the airline industry will be back begging for the TSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Completely Effective
How do I know it's 100% effective? I've never been in/near/around a terrorist attack while carrying it.
Seeing as I'm feeling generous, I'll license my patented hematite pocket-stone technology to the airlines for the low low price of only $100,000 per stone.
They should need only one stone per flight, and perhaps a couple more for each airport, so this is quite a bargain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Completely Effective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
And remember, if ever one of the stones proves defective, I will provide the first replacement stone at no additional cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Completely Effective
Anwser: no.
We know that the airlines were targets for hijackers since the late 60s, we know they have been targets for terrorists as well. The asspicks didn't fly Lobo Santos into the World Trade Center. So we know that airliners are high value targets, they are large, they are mobile, and they give the potential of "mass destruction".
So sadly, your amusing attempt to defect sort of fails. Proves perhaps you have no valid argument, otherwise, well....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
Are you making the claim the correlation and causation are not the same thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
In other words, is there any correlation between correlation and causation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
Lobo, you're a terrorist scum and the AC called you out on it! Not only this but you planned the attacks then changed your name online so we couldn't figure you out. You damn traitorist bastard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
Their goal for the longest time has been to bankrupt the US overall economy. Turn the policy makers against their citizens, impede on their freedoms, and spend money on false security in the attempt to look like they're actually doing something to stem the tide of terrorism.
What you're failing to see is how their decentralized networks, similar to Anonymous, have caused the US to spend $1 trillion in Afghanistan. All of this money is spent on the War on Terror.
Tell me, has it ever been a good thing to fight an idea, when the results are already known to all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Completely Effective
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Completely Effective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Completely Effective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nonotak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is not forward thinking, it is purely reactionary. All the security measures we have in place were there before the TSA or are a result of what someone already has done. They're trying to catch the last terror plot not the next.
We've spent a huge sum of money, and have not caught a single person who is intending to perform a terrorist act. We catch people sneaking on bottles of Dasani and 0.5" pocket knives that are no threat to anyone.
Then you consider the cost benefit analysis of what the TSA is doing. It costs a massive amount of money, time, and dignity and provides very little.
This is why the TSA has failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Willful blindness
If Mica really wants an effective and proven security setup, start talking to the Israelis and make a ROI on this or drop it entirely for the theater it actually is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
If someone has a plan to do some damage, it is highly unlikely they wouldn't demonstrate specific behaviors and exhibit certain traits. Just because you've never been trained in how to identify suspects does not mean that it's ineffective or problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
The officer who pulls you over might have "profiled" you as a speeder; the clerk behind the counter might have "profiled" you as a potential customer; the state government might have you "profiled" as a taxpayer and/or landowner; etc, etc, etc...
Not all profiling is bad and if used judiciously and properly, can help to quickly separate the "wheat" from the "chaff". IFO would rather the authorities weed out the actual terrorist threats long before there is any need for someone to try and locate suspicious behavior at the boarding or loading gates...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
Why to them? have they ever caught a terrorist on his way to the airplane? I guess they caught exactly the same round number of them as TSA did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Willful blindness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most of the dilemmas in this world are false. That's my opinion, and I don't want to discuss it: either you agree with me or not!
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What is more important to a terrorist: blowing up something or the number of people you kill? Any terrorists want to chime in? Given the number of people waiting to go through security theatre, a terrorist could kill and injure far more people by setting off a bomb at the security checkpoint. Bu
Remember when TSA/CBP had computer problems at LAX and they stopped processing anyone, forcing thousands of people to wait in the lobby and drop-off areas. Talk about a target rich environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suggest people frequent schneier.com and see how bruce's non-political views align with what Mica says. He's a leading expert. Smarter than me. Smarter than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, I'm sure that reinforced, locked pilot cabin doors and passengers who are more likely to try and subdue/kill you than submit to your threats has had nothing to do with deterring terrorists. Nope, it was definitely the easy-to-fool security screeners that scared them away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"you can run a test where you deliberately try to bring harmful items through a security checkpoint. "
That test would only prove if the technical equipment and the staff "work" in a given situation. That is testing on the effectivness right then and there, but doesn't address the bigger issue.
The bigger issue is one of choice before even coming to the airport. If the TSA systems make attempting to hijack / blow up / take over / steal an airplane an unattractive option, they won't even show up at the gate to be searched. So if they don't show up, is the security not effective, or is it very effective?
Is your home alarm only effective when it goes off in the middle of a robbery, or is it effective when a potential thief cases your house, spots the alarm system, and decides to move on without even trying?
No one step taken, from increased security scans and no fly lists to changes in "air side" security and in flight security are responsible for any change in behaviour. Taken as a whole, the US has not had a single episode "sourced within the TSA boundries" since.
I would also say that further, seeing that terrorists are using unsecure or less secure airports in Africa and such to try to sneak people into the system is equally telling. They are having to go to incredible lengths to try to get around the system, which suggests the TSA is doing exactly what it was intended to do.
Prove otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me attempt -- although I know is a feeble endeavor, given your massive stupidity and appalling lack of intellectual ability -- to educate you. I'll keep it short and simple, since I know anything beyond that would be far beyond your grasp.
Some terrorist organizations hit targets-of-opportunity: low risk, low reward. Some terrorist organizations hit major targets -- high risk, high reward -- and they are willing to spend a decade (or more) planning such attacks. (This is common knowledge to every educated person, but not to you, obviously.) The absence of an attack from these latter organizations tells you precisely NOTHING about the effectiveness of your security apparatus. It is not until the attack actually takes place that any data on that matter will be available.
Now consider how brilliant Al Queda's 9/11 attacks were: now consider the minimum-wage baboons that work for the TSA. Do you REALLY think the former will have the slightest difficulty out-thinking the latter? (That is, generously presuming the latter are even trying, and not busy stealing from passengers or running drugs -- as we saw in the news this week.)
If Al Queda decides to target the US again, and if they decide to target air travel, then the TSA will be an inconsequential and unimportant momentary blip on their radar. They will go right through the TSA as if they don't even exist (or, quite possibly, will leverage the TSA's idiocy in their favor).
Now, I know this is a lot for you to take in. But do try your best. You have a lot of catching up to do to the superior people who are far ahead of you in reasoning this out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I for one am not going to site by while the guy or gal in the seat next to me jumps up and yells Allah Akbar and brandishes some sort of weapon. If they do that I am going make them have the worst day of their life...
So, what does the TSA buy me? A lot of aggravation.
But, in fairness, it may dissuade a moron, idiot or jerk from doing something stupid.
A hardened, well trained terrorist? Not a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because if a TSA agent is patting down a terrorist...said terrorist is already in the United States.
You even mention that they are using foreign airports, although you got the continent wrong; Reid flew in from Paris and Abdubmutallab flew in from Amsterdam, both of which are European airports. Oh, and the "liquid bombers" in the UK.
Yet you seem to think that they're using foreign airports because there is no TSA there. In reality, they choose foreign airports because they aren't already in the US and they need to get here *somehow*.
And for the record, what you're engaging in is called a straw man argument. No one who is serious about this calls for the total removal of all airport security measures, so feel free to argue against phantom opponents on that topic. Most people just want to use reasonable measures, such as metal detectors which were commonplace pre-9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"On Christmas Day 2009, Abdulmutallab traveled from Ghana to Amsterdam, where he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 en route to Detroit. He had purchased his ticket with cash in Ghana on December 16"
Reid actually was stopped the day before, but security in Paris failed the next day. He has all the classic signs, including checking no baggage on a transatlantic flight.
Basically, he engaged onto a US plane by going to place with lower levels of security. Both of these bombers had the ability to enter the US (either visa or passport), but chose to start their attacks from remote locations with lower security levels than the TSA provided in the US.
As for the "strawman" point, I am sorry, but if you get rid of the TSA, you have gotten rid of security. If he wants to say "replace the TSA with more traditional metal detector only workers", then we have something. Just abolishing them would be on par with abolishing the border guards. You can figure out what is going to happen next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That assumes that TSA actually provided something that resembled security.
Just abolishing them would be on par with abolishing the border guards. You can figure out what is going to happen next.
What will happen? Tell us. On the US-Canada border you mean that people would smuggle via real border crossings instead of at the thousands of miles of undefended border? Or are you worried that thousands more Canadians will go shopping in the US, knowing that they won't have to wait 30 to 120 minutes to answer silly questions along a man-made line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last time I checked, Amsterdam is in Europe, not Africa.
Even though both attackers may have had a visa or passport, they still need to get into the United States from across the ocean. I don't think they'll be swimming over.
Once they're in the US, why on earth would they get back onto a plane? That's the only way TSA could catch them, but it doesn't make any sense at all. If they're already in the US then they would do a Faisal Shahzad or a Nidal Hassan.
You're still stuck on this strawman of "abolishing the TSA". No one serious will advocate the removal of all security from airports, that's why such an argument is a straw man. After all, we had security pre-9/11. And it didn't involve sexual assault, nude pictures from machines dosing passengers and workers with X-rays, taking off our shoes, or single-serving size containers of liquids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So while I applaud your efforts, and thank you for providing one or two new insights that I find interesting food for thought, I really don't think you're going to get anywhere with someone who is so incredibly stupid that they think the TSA has ever done ANYTHING useful vis-a-vis security -- that is, other than providing a very expensive lesson in how not to do it.
(Oh, and I would be perfectly fine with shutting down the TSA immediately. They won't be missed -- except by the drug dealers who are paying them off, see previous link.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gitmo - Imagine the huge disincentive to release anyone from Gitmo. You have a lot of "innocent" people there, but security more than likely doesn't want anyone released. It's the same reason Obama or Bush won't let up on Gitmo. You KNOW what would happen if they let someone get away and suddenly we had another terrorist bombing. People would be out for the POTUS' head should there ever be another 9/11.
TSA - The entire problem here is how the Supervisors just have to keep their head down. You have given the agents a free pass on sexual assault. All in the name of security. Nothing that they've done has actually helped security concerns. The TSA has scanners that don't work right. They have agents who are more interested in searching for nail clippers than bombs. And you have an agency who probably knows their existence could be erased should Congress ever wisen up and decide to erase them.
But in the last few years, the point has remained. People are critical of the TSA because the sexual assualt is NOT needed. The scanners aren't required for safety, and bullying children or the elderly for security is NOT doing them any favors.
I'm not arguing against you, but seeing this AC's posts, I can only shake my head as the reason for the security theater, from the inappropriate touching to the fact that many dangerous items have escaped their notice, is lost to them because they don't want to look at that evidence.
Sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope? Then I think perhaps you might want to tone it down a bit. Recycling hyperbole that seems to mostly be dished out by bloggers and writers looking for 15 minutes of fame seems a bit of a misdirection.
It is incredible hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you start with such a point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Link. You should know she outed the agent that touched her. She's not the only one.
Here's a woman that touched the TSA's breast - Link. She got aggressive
A woman was arrested for not allowing her daughter to be groped because of their STO - Link
Woman removed adult diaper because of TSA - Link. Oh, she has cancer.
Finally here is Susie Castillo talking about that patdown.
I have more stories about this ludicrous standard operating procedure. You ask me for cases? Here's just a few that would make great headlines (and did) for the reason NOT to like the TSA. Still want to go at this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact is they are completely worthless at stopping an intelligent and determined terrorist.
The only real deterrent against terrorists hi-jacking commercial passenger planes for use as a weapon since September 11, 2001 are reinforced, locked cockpit doors and passenger willingness to attack and fight back against terrorists that reveal themselves on the plane.
Your analogy about home alarms doesn't even make sense, as you're comparing criminals who are trying to steal valuable goods with minimal to no hassle to terrorists who are potentially willing to kill themselves if it means accomplishing their objective. It's an asinine comparison.
Any terrorist that is caught by the TSA is a stupid terrorist that would have never succeeded anyway.
So basically we're spending 6-8 billion dollars a year on worthless security theater when we could at least be spending it on investigating and catching smart terrorists who will never be caught by the TSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But don't try to say that they actually have stopped an event or actively disrupted an attack. as the guy said, “They’ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.”
they are like rent a cops at a school. they are there to make you think twice, but as to their effectiveness, it's questionable. As a mater of fact, they have failed several times to prevent possible attacks. their win/ loss record is something like 0-3 or 0-5 now, isn't it?
If I was 0- 5 in my job, I'd be fired. If a company was 0-5, they would be out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“they actually trained more workers than they have on the job,” Mica said.
Unless a company never fired anyone and no one quit, wouldn't that always be true? I feel like I'm beginning to understand why Mica is so surprised that the TSA didn't work out as planned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It go either way. I would fly on those days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When and where were you "patted down" even once, let alone "numerous times" prior to 9/11?
Airport locations and dates.
Provide 'em or be revealed as a lying scumbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 90 Day Moritorium
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Cold shiver
2. Disbelieve
3. Lose faith in humanity
Please quit voicing your opinion. There are enough ultraconservative - shitting my pants - patriot act is a fine thing - assholes out there already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Al Qaeda has ALREADY used a bomb hidden up a terrorist's ass. In 2009 they used an "ass bomb" in an attempt to kill a Saudi prince. The bomb failed to kill the target that time, likely because a large part of the available space was occupied by the cellphone used to allow remote detonation of the bomb---al Qaeda wanted remote control in order to make sure the bomb went off when the bomber was near the target---and to reduce the chance of second thoughts on the bomber's part.
To take down an airliner, they can skip the cellphone. Replace it with a (much smaller) timer circuit and pack more plastic explosive into the bomb itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does this include TSA at Bus stops and train stations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You make it sounds like criminals are rushing onto airplanes. You have no proof of this.
There are many many easier and better ways to cause damage as a terrorist, other than trying to blow up an airplane in mid flight. Remember, they've already secured the cock-pits, so no more taking over planes. You still have air marshals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you announce dates, you are basically telling everybody "hey, no security between these days." Instead, just stopping it people will wonder 1) has it stopped? 2) did they fix it? 3) are they somewhere else? But then be able to continue about their day without getting TSAped. Airlines would even see a boost in sales, and probably start running on time for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Drop the security and I will buy my fist plane ticket in 10 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The NY Times recently published an article that states to be cost effective the TSA would have to have uncovered more than 200 terrorist plots from it's founding, to a few weeks ago.
Plots uncovered? None.
Lawsuits against incompetent employees and blatant civil right violations? Endless
You can argue to the moon and back about the potential terrorists that were turned away because of their presence, but there is simply no evidence that they've been effective in anything but dramatically slowing down airport traffic.
You think the airlines would be begging for the TSA back after 90 days? Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much more money the airlines would make without the TSA presence? I don't think you realize how many people don't fly anymore simply because of them. Do you know how much money they've been losing since 9/11?
Operating and owning an airline company, even a small one, was considered the fast track to being a billionaire. Now it's basically a one way track to bankruptcy unless you are a mega corporation.
Removing the TSA would be the best news an airline company could ever receive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horrible Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
According to your logic, the TSA should be inspecting our homes and cars periodically. After all, the OK City Federal Building was blown up by a bomb made in a man's house and driven there in a pickup. Perhaps we should get TSA on the case of ensuring that no car bombs are driven into Time Square again?
Air Travel, including acts of terrorism, is the safest and least volnerable means of travel todate (despite TSA).
Tweet @canaanv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
According to your logic, the TSA should be inspecting our homes and cars periodically. After all, the OK City Federal Building was blown up by a bomb made in a man's house and driven there in a pickup. Perhaps we should get TSA on the case of ensuring that no car bombs are driven into Time Square again?
Air Travel, including acts of terrorism, is the safest and least volnerable means of travel todate (despite TSA).
Tweet @canaanv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
According to your logic, the TSA should be inspecting our homes and cars periodically. After all, the OK City Federal Building was blown up by a bomb made in a man's house and driven there in a pickup. Perhaps we should get TSA on the case of ensuring that no car bombs are driven into Time Square again?
Air Travel, including acts of terrorism, is the safest and least volnerable means of travel todate (despite TSA).
Tweet @canaanv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@anonymouscoward
I would be MORE willing to travel with the TSA gone. I'm far more scared of my 9 year-old daughter being scarred for life by some overzealous TSA groper than I am of terrorists.
The TSA is an example of a political reaction. Without a clear way to respond, the government created an agency with no good plan and no goals, metrics, or accountability, and it has become a complete failure.
The TSA has never intercepted any terrorist plot in progress. They tout finding drugs or swiss army knives as "success". Likewise, they HAVE failed to prevent multiple attackers from boarding planes (see: shoe bomber), and, as Mica points out, they are entirely reactive.
At some point in the future, with or without the TSA, an attack will succeed. Oh, well. That may sound flippant, but life has risks. You get in a car, you risk dying. You eat a burger, you risk dying. (3000 people die per year to foodborne pathogens.)
What won't happen again is another 9/11; aware passengers, hardened cockpits, etc, mean that the best you can do on an airplane is take an airplane down. That's something we lived with for decades with terrorists attacking airplanes, long before 9/11.
Meanwhile, while we waste our money on the TSA in airports trying to prevent "another 9/11" that cannot happen, we are neglecting port security, infrastructure security, and computer/network infrastructure security, all of which are dramatically more vulnerable and could have a much, much larger impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A world without the TSA.........
Besides, what's the diff between being killed by a terrorist with a gun and a state mandate, or getting snuffed by some alcohol-soaked clodhopper out for a Sunday drive on Tuesday who plows into the crowd I'm standing with waiting for the bus or whatever? Life has only one guarantee. It will end for me, someday and I'm not wasting any of it on useless worry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 14th, 2011 @ 9:30am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..?
So slowly remove the TSA and save billions of dollars. We will all be happier for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your fascist pals at the TSA are more of a threat to this country than al Qaeda today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 14th, 2011 @ 9:30am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol see that's why they have "employees" "taking care of you". They're trying to collect any way they can!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Airport Security Officers And Cops Snared In Multistate Oxycodone Ring, U.S. Attorney Says (link:
http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-tsa-oxycodone-arrests-0914-20110913,0,5809644.story)
Well, they'll take payoffs from drug dealers; does anyone REALLY believe they won't take payoffs from terrorists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA has been very successful..
But at catching terrorists...not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA has been very successful..
Add to the $9billion, the numbers of tourists who haven't visited since this started and America's reputation as doing things totally "over the top".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, it was in response to the events of 9/11, though it is useful to note that screening of airline passengers was being done well before them. Since the formation of TSA, it has taken what was being done before and morphed it into screening on streroids, and the steroids are getting stronger by the day.
What has always troubled me about the post-9/11 response is the pre-9/11 all of the perpetrators of those horrific acts were already on the radar of numerous agencies. What was missing was agency cooperation in real time to share information, so all of the warning signs were never combined to provide decision makers with a comprehensive data set.
It has also troubled me that security measures at airports have spilled over into numerous other venues such as government buiidings, courthouses, and others at all level of government, i.e., federal, state, counties, cities, townships...the list goes on). Only the Good Lord knows where else these intrusive procedures will be implemented.
In all candor, however, perhaps the most troubling thing of all it the apparent willingness of the travelling public to simply go with the flow. At times it seems as if most of the public have turned into lemmings, and now shun the role of independent thinkers who are more than willing to trade the illusion of security for basic constitutional rights.
Then again, what else is new? Deferring to government has apparently turned into the rule, and not the exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
what "service" was being provided by the TSA
I think the TSA should carry people's bags from the curb to the check-in counter. There are multiple benefits including opportunities to inspect the luggage, talk to the passengers and observe behavior. It would also reduce congestion at the airport because you would not have people trying to lug more than they can to the wrong counter and back everyone else up (assuming the TSA can figure out the appropriate place to bring the luggage).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FYI, the perpetrators are not known even today. Unless of course you count the names reported basing on such "evidence" as passports that flew out of the pockets of the terrorists in the crushed plane, safely landed on the street, and were "found by a bystander"; or "19 hijackers" who were later found alive; or names of the passengers read over the alleged cellphone call from the airplane that was technically impossible; etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nothing "technically impossible" about cellphone calls from aircraft. It's been done (illegally) time and again, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS A REGULATION AGAINST DOING IT. It causes lots of problems for the cell companies; tieing up far more cellular channels than a ground-level call. That's why they don't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogy Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If implimented tomarrow,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The way it reads to me the two main take-aways are Mica believes that the TSA
-Should be privatized.
-Should be refocusing on its (supposedly original) mission of tracking terrorists and identifying terrorist threats to transportation infrastructure.
On the first point I'm not confident would do a lot of good. My experience working in both the private and public sector is that the same types of problems (inefficiencies, politics, bureaucracy, etc.) occur in equal amounts in both.
The second point I don't see the benefit either. Is there a reason the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc can't assume this type of work? In other words, we already have an absurd number of intelligence agencies installed in the current government, why can't this work be subsumed into one or all of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now if only the government would provide clear objectives and oversight when hiring these sorts of firms; and then firing them very quickly if/when it becomes clear they aren't measuring up to their part of the bargain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IOW, if he ever regains power, he'll suddenly change his mind again and expand the TSA even further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad but true button...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad but true button...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over Protected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Over Protected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal Behaviour
And while they're taking care of "us" they're also taking care of their friends
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/minneta-walker-buffalo-ts_n_830013.html
http: //www.newsytype.com/11280-tsa-drug-smuggling/
So much for "training" courtesy of USA tax dollars. 'Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just dismantle the TSA?
There comes a point where gross incompetence is a criminal offense. The TSA has caused untold harm to this country, and we need to make an example of everyone involved with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To think that a form of organization is to blame for the decisions made by the actual people making the decisions is troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, they are also so over zealous, they can cause a mother to be take off a plane at it's destination, strip searched, and questioned because she looked like a guy who spent too long in the bathroom because he was sick.
Let the people police themselves. will save 9 billion dollars. where are all the Tea Partiers calling for the TSA to be eliminated? they are a bigger waste of money than any "social welfare" programs they hate so much (until they need them)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They would probably call me a gay or something like that they would not want to be caught dead looking like a freak (to them).
I had them one time rip apart my luggage and while they did that they were talking to me qabout what I was doing with "CAMERA GEAR" and they made their small talk and I damn well am not dumb.They were calling in my name,etc while they "talked" to me so if my name came up they would then arrest me on the spot.
Another time they felt my balls and my ass !!! FUCK OFF TSA
Another time they told me I had a choice of going thru their stupid useless machine or being hand patted so I said sure put me thru the machine.They still hand patted me as well they ripped apart my luggage.
TSA Can Eat SHIT !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not often when you see this behavior in a politician, in or out of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's True!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i've not been a Good Girl
I never have more than 3-5 oz of miscellaneous items in my carryons. Mostly because I don't like the goo-factor of something doesn't like the altitude and the presence of sensitive electronic items in my carry-ons.
Just saying. I regard flying like I regard bus-riding, I've done it so much that is a means to an end. I do my best to make sure i'm not an obstruction, otherwise I'm just doing what they want so I can get where i want to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes people not directly affected by what they do feel the government is keeping them safe.
Like any government system, it is inefficient at doing its actual planned job. The people who have to put up with all of this are rightly annoyed about being felt up, exposed to untested machines, and the general indignities we are expected to put up with.
The TSA has on many occasions has proven that it is out of control, and the people in charge try and try to always claim it is an isolated incident.
We have TSA agents stealing from people.
We have TSA agents using their badge well outside of the airport.
We have TSA agents looking to make a little side money by hopping people up in line.
We have TSA agents trading in drugs.
They advertised for TSA agents on pizza boxes in my area, does this sound like a highly trained staff here to protect us or more like a buncha people who show up to stand and look important.
The answer to every problem with the system is spend more money, buy the next new technology pimped by a former congresscritter, and nothing is spent on trying to back away from the joke they created. The fear of being reported as soft on terrorism keeps logical rational thought from entering the debate.
They reenforced the cockpit doors, something that had been called for for years. This lessens the chance of a flight being taken over and having a repeat of the tragedy. The airlines spend more money to get entertainment systems onto their flights, but do nothing to add containers that could contain a bomb in the items in the belly, it is not cost effective when they can make money selling net access. When the airlines refuse to use a proven thing to make us safer, why the hell are we spending money on things that are not working and create more problems.
This pretty much sums up our responses...
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/12/for-911-boing-boing-flickr-pool.html
We deserve better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/airport-screening-statistics.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $43.6 Billion Dollars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank God! A ray of intelligence shines in the distance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The perfect Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
better job
No scams, No selling, Nothing to buy.
Just click the link to learn more.
It's been working for me
http://www.varolo.com/village/Iroc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
complete waste of money
someone should audit every single politician and company involved in the TSA and show every connection, contribution, link, etc. involved. i bet you that there's so much corruption in that, it'd make the so-called terrorists look like martyrs for helping to inadvertently show our own internal corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46114
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tsa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"they actually trained more than they have working"
I don't believe that security should be privatized. If anything, I think the TSA should be restructured but remain public. There is no reason to believe that airlines or security companies would not bloat their costs in order to achieve some measure of profit for their shareholders. Privatization does not mean more efficiency without the proper regulation/game rules. I doubt the argument here is /for/ dismantling the TSA /and/ providing /more/ regulations for consumer protection is what anyone is proposing.
Yet again, it's now an argument for who takes home more--between collective labour and shareholders. Want to guess which party Mica belongs to? (G-O-Peeeee)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have private security and federal police in our airports, and they do their job. Germany even managed to uncover some terror plots recently, but that didn't happen in the airports and it shouldn't . These plots were uncovered by our police and intelligence service and that's how it should be. Airport security should only be a safety net, a potential terrorist should never make it to the airport. Get rid of the TSA and invest in well trained private security companies and a well organised federal police force
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Is The U.S. of "A" NOT The U.S. of "I"
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." --John Sheehan
"This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?
Saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."
John Mearsheimer - University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt - Harvard
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (2006)
http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=209
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cellphone calls from high altitudes is possible today, but was indeed impossible in 2001. Do your research.
As for your tired "tinfoil" mantra: Don't be absurd. The strategy of trying to associate people who demand a thorough investigation of the 9/11 attack with crazy people is wearing rather thin. People are wising up to your stupid games. Your "no planers", "moon landing hoaxers" and "tin foil hatters" who are all a part of your psychological warfare tactics to muddy the waters only work on the incredibly stupid and intellectually lazy.
It's really time you put them to bed now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In essence, TSA is marketing for politicians seeking re-election. And in a society driven by marketing, it fulfilled that purpose quite well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's the handler, not the tool being used
Congress flat out admitted that TSA was failing its mission. Instead of a lean and mean security force driven by true intelligence, TSA has gotten weighed down and unencumbered as a labor force. It's all in the report!
There are a number of screening tools that can be used for security but how good they are depends on the handler using them. If the tool's strengths and weaknesses are known, and the tool is handled by someone operating within the correct framework, well and good. If the tool is operated by a low-skilled pizza-box recruit in need of a paycheck, willing to sieg heil for that paycheck, well - that is the situation we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's the handler, not the tool being used
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Politically Corretness Be Safe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Politically Corretness Be Safe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]