TSA Security Theater Described In One Simple Infographic

Failures

from the theater-of-the-absurd dept

Wed, Apr 11th 2012 5:16am — Mike Masnick

Didier J. MARY points us to an infographic highlighting why the TSA's security theater has been such a huge waste of taxpayer money:

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

Filed Under: infographic, security theater, tsa

104 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

gorehound (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:19am

Great Job
That is Awesome !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
halley (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:22am

The points made in the infographic may be powerful, but the presentation completely ruins the impact.

I've seen many of these so-called "info-graphics" that are nothing more than unattractive typestyle masturbation exercises. "Ooh, a grungy filter, that'll make it look great!" It's pixel barf, sliding down a long wall.

If the data is more clearly demonstrated visually, use a graphic, and make it clear. If the data is just a series of bullet points or better expressed in prose, don't feel compelled to make a two-meter-tall PowerPoint slide out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:51am
  
  Re:
  Agreed. While sometimes, the graphic adds something, makes a point, this one has very few details that carry some info in and of themselves and lots of stuff that is just 'artsy' and obscures the content it should carry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    While the artsy style does make it more of a pain to read, that actually works in favor of information retention. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/health/19mind.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re:
  Cool! You seem to know a lot about graphic design.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:30am

Some of the points in the graphic have been debunked. I am not a fan of the TSA, but I hate to see Techdirt lower itself by promoting its viewpoints with bad data. One of TD's touchstones is its insistence on quality data.

There are plenty of good solid reasons for hating the TSA without resorting to this type of garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:35am
  
  Re:
  "Some of the points." How informative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:43am
  
  Re:
  Which points, and can you provide links to the debunking?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Its possible he is referring to at least the idea that metal objects on your side are invisible to the scanners. While that is still in question, I didn't really see anything else on there that could have been "debunked".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I thought it was proven that metal on your side is invisible but they were now making people turn in the machine?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chosen Reject (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I dont' know about turning in the machine, but there are some machines that rotate a small amount. McCarran airport in Las Vegas has these.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:03am
  
  Re:
  [Citation Needed]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re:
  Can you be more specific? What has been debunked?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:41am

So...
If the TSA, in 10+ years has cost 60 billion...

...

No wonder the United States is broke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eileen (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: So...
  It is shocking. Think of all the times you've read an article about a groundbreaking NASA satellite and someone always responds "Guys we are BROKE! No more playing around with learning stuff about the universe! We need to stop spending blah blah". 60 Billion is TEN James Webb telescopes (and that's the most expensive, state-of-the-art ever). It's 60 Chandra X-ray observatories (one of the 'great observatories' which is surpassed only by Hubble in revolutionizing our understanding of the Universe). It's funding for Hubble scientists (the thousands of people who use the instrument) for another six hundred years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rubberpants, 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re: So...
    Right, but there are no immediate quarterly gains when someone discovers a new extra-solar planent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beta (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:00am
    
    Re: Re: So...
    If only we could get people scared of alien invasion...
    
    Nah. Scientists are plenty smart, but darn it, they just love the truth too much to tell the public that we a new state-of-the-art orbital telescope every year to keep us safe from imaginary monsters.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:13am
    
    Re: Re: So...
    If NASA wants more money they need to invent a moral panic and a solution that only they can implement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 10:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: So...
      ... the current government of the USA and it's cronies around the world are enough of a panic-causer.
      
      the Solution is extra-explanatory colonization.
      
      unfortunately, that doesn't really fly with the bureaucrats and congress critter types in charge of funding.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dreddsnik, 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:46am

Yes, links to debunked points please.

We'll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Albe23 (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:02am

Wasn't the issue with seeing weapons at the sides an issue with the old scanners? Because of the black background? I believe the new versions don't have that issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:00am
  
  Re:
  Are all the old model scanners still in use?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    If not I am glad we wasted hundreds of millions on a flawed product. I am sure we will find a flaw in the new model soon and get to buy a whole new set.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:08am

which is worse?

whilst working for TSA, in a supposedly responsible, highly-controversial position dealing with the public and public safety, steal $40,000 and get 5 months jail time when caught.

OR

sharing a few songs, get fined millions of dollars, have your life totally and forever fucked up by a bunch of absolute morons

answers on a postcard please!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:20am

Biggest issue with the TSA is they're (at least partially) concerned with all the wrong things. They're also always chasing the last threat.

Who cares about knives? The only reason knives worked on 9/11 is that in all the previous hijackings, the worst the passengers got was a week in Havanna or some random not-so friendly country. Then they went home and no body was seriously injured. Now, no sane passenger will let a plane be hijacked by people with knives now. Hell, taking over a plane with knives didn't even work more than an hour on 9/11 before that tactic was rendered obsolete over PA.

The other issue is the huge waste of money to cover X vulnerability, while Y obvious one is left open. To date, it's those other vulnerabilities that have been exploited (e.g, getting past security in a foreign country).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 8:13am
  
  Re:
  Locking the pilots in the cabin was the #1 best way to prevent kamikaze planes. That fix severely limits the damage any terrorist could do essentially assuring they will not likely gain control of the aircraft. It reduced the number of potential deaths to those on the flight and maybe a few on the ground from falling debris. Still a tragedy but not 9/11.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  I know for a fact that if I were on a plane and the hijackers were only holding knives, yeah, I would need a doctor but screw you am I letting you control my life with a freakin knife.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
EF, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:25am

---"TSA Security Theater"--- The most expensive show in town! Come on down and we'll make you a part of the act! As a participating audience member, we'll put you on stage: you'll get groped, naked-scanned, searched and humiliated. All ages welcome. Bring the kids and grandparents, and your hot girlfriends, we'll screen them all! [No cameras allowed (except ours). Heckling not allowed. No refunds allowed. Gratuity may or may not be secretly collected.]
So pack your bags and come see the show! You won't feel any safer when you leave but you're sure to have bad time!

Now playing at an airport near you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prashanth (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:36am

Last parts of the graphic
I'm not sure I agree with the last part of the graphic. I mean, I agree with the overall message, but couldn't this have been done more generally without invoking any particular politician's name? Plus, how is private security any better than government-run security? The same thing would likely continue, and it would probably be even worse because we would be losing the precious few rights we have once we let private companies run what was once the domain of the government. (I only say this because I've seen a number of stories where discrimination and such suits have worked against the government but not against private companies, so please correct me if I'm wrong in saying this.) What I would REALLY like to see is a return to the pre-9/11 overt security measures combined with skilled people trained to monitor passengers' behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:50am
  
  Re: Last parts of the graphic
  Pre 9/11 Airport Security was ran by private companies. It was still largely Security Theater and not Security, but it cost us less.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:52am
  
  Re: Last parts of the graphic
  "Plus, how is private security any better than government-run security? "
  
  Private security wouldnt cost the US taxpayers 60 billion dollars, and likely be far more effective.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:01pm
  
  Re: Last parts of the graphic
  a private company would be accountable for sexually molesting people. they wouldn't just get paid leave or something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prashanth (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:42pm
    
    Re: Re: Last parts of the graphic
    Ah, that does make sense. But then, if all private companies end up molesting people and the TSA's actions today set a precedent for that, how would that help anyone?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
F. Reedum, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:45am

On its current trajectory, the US should implode by 2030
It's an inside job. No terrists need apply. The US is killing itself.

Ah, Capitalism, thy name is Death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 8:14am
  
  Re: On its current trajectory, the US should implode by 2030
  Government run security and waste is not capitalism. Try again!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re: On its current trajectory, the US should implode by 2030
  SWING AND A MISS... PLEASE TRY AGAIN..MAYBE TRY FOX OR MSN THOSE TARDS BELIEVE ANYTHING..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:00pm
  
  Re: On its current trajectory, the US should implode by 2030
  Soon if you follow the idea that government has 6 steps after the last one (according to Polybius) north america (the us part) will become a mob rule area :P sounds better then the bull shit we have but meh depends who the biggest mob is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
EF, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:51am

Prashanth, one major point revealed by this info-graphic is that the gov't has spent ALL THIS MONEY, your money, my money, our money... and for what? A bloated, expensive, ineffective, bureaucracy and none of us are the better for it. Control, restrict, and regulate is the order of the day, all at the peril of the taxpayer and their liberty. The TSA is, in effect, just a small representation of the Federal Government itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liz (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:52am

TSA agent among 55 caught in kid porn net
Time to update the infographic.

TSA agent among 55 caught in kid porn net
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061123719

Cops snared 55 Massachusetts men in a sweeping, multi-agency child pornography crackdown � including a Transportation Security Administration officer assigned to Logan International Airport who is just the latest embarrassment for the troubled federal agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:56am

We don't need a fancy infographic to tell us that the TSA has been completely ineffective.

Just look at the data: it has been unable to prevent the occurrence of 9/11 every year since its creation. And, if the current trend continues, we will have yet another 9/11 this year, in early September.

The TSA should be looking at work done in this area by it's European counterparts. For example, ancient Roman experts have long introduced measures to ensure that the threat of 2/29 only occurs once every 4 years. That's a 300% reduction in the number of occurrences, a real success story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:04am

Um . . . much as I despise contending with the TSA, why did this thing have to take a political bent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:05am

Will private airport security grope you at a better price tag than TSA?
Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 10:50pm
  
  Re: Will private airport security grope you at a better price tag than TSA?
  'if we can't fix it, can we at least spend less money for a given amount of fail?' i guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:22am

"Private security wouldnt cost the US taxpayers 60 billion dollars, and likely be far more effective."

Not really, private security would still have to follow the TSA's rules for what to/how to search for threats, so they wouldn't be any less invasive. They could add their own security searches/etc if they want to however. Also the cost would be shifted onto airline passengers, since who do you think pays for private screeners?

Also I doubt that the private screeners really save any money, regardless of who pays for them, seeing as TSA workers at airports ALREADY make minimum wage. That's part of why their yearly turnover rate is over 100%, it's not a pleasant job to do, nor is it pleasant having people constantly angry with you over the invasive things you're being paid to do.

The only way you can possibly save more money then hiring minimum wage people is to hire less people, which means longer lines and waits, or buying expensive new equipment that's supposed to speed up the process (like the full body scanners, that are very invasive).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:42am
  
  Re:
  Or you could hire people and buy machines that are more efficient.
  
  There are places where one highly qualified individual with the right tools can do the job of 20 unqualified grunts with poor equipment. That tends to be cheaper in the long run.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  Maybe I don't know the jargon but wouldn't "their yearly turnover rate is over 100%" mean that everyone who they employ quits within a year, some more than once?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If you employ 100 people, and have to train 200 per year, your turnover is 200%, or twice the number of people you employ. Basically, if the turnover is over 100%, then most people do not last even a full year there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Simple Mind (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 8:47am
  
  Re:
  Yes, really. "wouldnt cost the US taxpayers 60 billion dollars". How in any way is that "Not, really"? I guess for you not paying for something with tax dollars is the same as paying for it with tax dollars.
  
  And notice from the graphic that the bureaucracy is getting paid much more than minimum wage. As with anything paid for with taxes, there is little incentive to lower costs. Over time it just becomes a huge hierarchy of bureaucrats leeching off of us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  """...seeing as TSA workers at airports ALREADY make minimum wage."""
  
  Could you provide your source for this? Other than the infographic above, it seems like I've read that TSA workers in the field make well over minimum wage. Probably not in the 6 digit range, but definitely not minimum wage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Simple Mind (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 1:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd be curious where they got the 100% turnover, too. Half the staff would need to be hiring managers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 10:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      given all their other issues, would it surprise you if they were? *laughs*
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:26pm
  
  Re:
  I don't know where you live, but minimum wage where Live isn't $50,000 a year.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:37am

They are only missing one thing in this infographic: The background should be cherries, to represent all the cherry picked facts and unqualified statements.

35,000 security violations? How does that compare to (a) number of checkpoints, (b) number of travellers, (c) number of travelled miles by passengers in the system?

It's pretty obvious that someone is trying to do a one sided hatchet job. It's ugly and misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Logician (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:53am
  
  Re:
  You make an accusation without evidence, AC 28. Unless you provide some empirical data disputing that given in the graphic, your argument is invalid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 8:21am
  
  Re:
  Your right they forgot this important piece of data. How many terrorists has the TSA stopped? 0!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    "How many terrorists has the TSA stopped? "
    
    We will never know. If a terrorist chose not to attack the US on US territory because an attack from a US airport was no longer easy, they may have stopped many attacks.
    
    It's like asking how many robberies your locked front door on your house stops. You might only find out if you leave your front door wide open for a few weeks to see.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - akp, 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      False analogy. I have a special candle in my house that prevents tiger attacks. I know it works because I've never been attacked by a tiger.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fail.
        
        You have failed to prove that tigers were attacking you before you got the candle, and that things have changed since.
        
        We have 9/11 as proof that we were being attacked before.
        
        Where is your tiger, bad analogy man?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes but 0 terrorists arrested and 25,000 breaches + the few terrorists that have gotten onto planes since 9/11 (underwear guy, shoe guy ect) have all been stopped by passengers not the TSA + the TSA consistently fails its own security tests proves that it isn't working.
        
        We were attacked before, since then they have let terrorist slip through and constant security mishaps with not one terrorist actually physically stopped. Current TSA is no more of a psychological deterrence than the old private security forces were.
        
        Its like saying replacing my front door made of wood with one made of iron will prevent future break ins even when I dont change my back door or any of my windows.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Machin Shin (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You realize a ONE TIME EVENT does not show a trend. Yes there was 9/11 but where is the stream of attacks before that? If you could show that it was common before 9/11 for planes to get hijacked and that now it has stopped then you could claim this system works.
        
        You don't have that though. It would be about like getting attacked by a tiger in your home in Colorado and then installing anti-tiger measures and claiming they are keeping out the tigers. You have no clue if it is working or if that was the only one anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FuzzyDuck, 11 Apr 2012 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was in a car accident once. I have now placed a picture of a white tiger* on my dashboard. Haven't had any accidents since. Clearly the picture of the white tiger* prevents accidents.
        
        * others experience similar results with their favorite deity/symbol.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Berenerd (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A criminal that is willing to kill himself to get to my cheeto collection would find a way around a locked door....just sayin.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Beta (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "If a terrorist chose not to attack the US on US territory because an attack from a US airport was no longer easy, they may have stopped many attacks."
      
      Are you sure it wasn't the magic pebble I've been carrying since October 2001?
      
      Any terrorist with the backing, intelligence and dedication of the 9/11 terrorists could commit an act of mass murder on U.S. soil without boarding an airplane. Granted, killing thousands in a single attack (or two) would be difficult, and the drama of 9/11 would be almost impossible to beat, but people like that wouldn't be stopped by current airport security measures even if current airport security measures worked as intended, which they don't.
      
      So can we please stop this "look, no attacks since we banned nail clippers" routine?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know a really good place to set off a bomb now days? In the security line or ticket line depending on which is more backed up. I hope that makes you feel safer knowing that nothing prevents a terrorist from walking into an airport and blowing up the few hundred people that are always right inside the door of a busy one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        not "you" the poster above me, the metaphorical "you"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We will never know. If a terrorist chose not to attack the US on US territory because an attack from a US airport was no longer easy, they may have stopped many attacks.
      
      It's like asking how many robberies your locked front door on your house stops. You might only find out if you leave your front door wide open for a few weeks to see.
      
      Interesting... Because on the subject of the social networking patent thicket, you said:
      
      Please show me an example of companies that have been forced out of the social media / interactive business because of patents.
      
      Double standard much? Maybe we should leave the doors of patents wide open for a few weeks to see!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, you are dense, aren't you? You try hard, but wow, do you fail.
        
        Patents might take 10 years or more for us to see a change. It isn't really on the same scale.
        
        Further, let's be fair here: Removing the security at a given airport isn't the same scale as disabling the patent or copyright system on a hunch.
        
        You really are a piece of work there Marcus. You are having to work so hard to try to catch me on something. You are still a few points behind, considering how many times you have had your ass handed to you in the last couple of weeks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 4:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think he's had his ass handed to him at all. In point of fact, you have had yours handed to you way more since you've been on this site than Marcus has.
        
        Besides, your idea of Marcus having his "ass handed to him" usually means you try and put a spin on Marcus' OPINION and saying "ha, you're wrong!"
        
        That's not even remotely the same as handing someone's ass to them.
        
        Dense? Yeah, that's you. Try hard and fail? Yep, you again. Piece of work? You've hit the trifecta there. Working hard to try and catch Marcus on something? Ditto.
        
        Basically everything you try and say Marcus is ACTUALLY applies to you more than it does him. Not too mention the weird obsession you have with him. And to deny it is to just say, "I AM A BIG FAT LIAR AND EVERYTHING I SAY CAN OFFICIALLY BE TAKEN WITH A POUND OF SALT."
        
        AC, just give up. You've won nothing, you're no points ahead, etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - FuzzyDuck, 11 Apr 2012 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We will never know. If a terrorist chose not to attack the US on US territory because an attack from a US airport was no longer easy, they may have stopped many attacks.
      
      Remember what Bush said: "they hate us because we are free". The obvious solution was to remove freedom. This objective has been consistently pursued by the Bush and Obama regimes.
      
      Why would any terrorist need to attack the US, when the US government is doing exactly what the terrorists want?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Fiona Taylor, 12 Apr 2012 @ 12:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am from London and work n the travel industry. The TSA measures really do have an impact on people deciding not to fly to the US. Countless passengers who would otherwise love to visit America, often decide it's "much less hassle" to travel through Europe instead, usually because of some poor experience friends or relatives have had with airport security in the states. My own elderly mother refuses to fly to NYC to vsit my brother now as she feels her treatment by security staff at JFK was humiliating and wholly unnecessary. Security is of course needed but not so much that it eats itself. Got to find the balance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    > Your right they forgot this important piece
    > of data. How many terrorists has the TSA stopped?
    
    I'm no fan of the TSA, but that's an unfair question.
    
    It's like asking how many assassinations the Secret Service has prevented this year. No one has been arrested for trying to kill the president, but there's no way of knowing how many people were deterred from even trying based on the hard target perception the Secret Service creates with its protective policies and procedures.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 1:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually there have been 195 arrests for threats to the executive in 2012... its a posted fact...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Actually there have been 195 arrests for
        > threats to the executive in 2012
        
        I didn't say 'threats', did I? I said 'trying to kill the president'.
        
        There's a whole universe of difference between making a drunken comment in a bar or an ill-advised Facebook post and actually attempting an assassination.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  Number of traveled miles by passengers? You think that would be a good metric? Why not increase it to number of feet traveled per cubic volume of blood? That would make the numbers even more in the TSA's favor without having actually measured anything of any significance. Is there some kind of inherently bigger security risk for longer flights over shorter ones? I admit that it's less likely for terrorists to hijack a flight from Chicago to Milwaukee since they'd have so little time to act, but that doesn't mean that they're more likely hijack a trans-pacific flight than a cross country flight.
  
  As an aside, I googled "35,000 security violations" and the first link was your post, which Google seemed to think occurred 6 days ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian B., 11 Apr 2012 @ 7:44am

Here's an alternative to TSA
I have known for years that TSA would eventually turn into a government run department void of accountability and riddled with inefficiencies.

I've never gotten used to the awkward belt de-robbing, the absurd .001 liquid rules, and the mounting disrespect for humanity while traveling past security in any airport in US. I've never seen a group of individuals so entitled to control your belongings and strip you not only of your clothing but your dignity.

What I also can't get used to is being charged for my bags to be boarded each time I fly when I know the airlines are just as inefficiently run as TSA. I can't control the TSA just yet (leave that to Congress), but I can take my bags away from the airlines and send them ahead of time. I ship my bags each time I fly. They pick up from my door and send to my end destination, allowing me to better handle the de-humanzing and often stressful travel experience. I use www.lugless.com, they are pretty great and pricing is very similar to what airlines charge for checked bags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 8:07am

The real meaning of TSA is...
..."Terrorist Support Agency". They're doing exactly what terrorists hoped for in their wildest dreams. Of course the TSA and its supporters are way too stupid to realize this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: The real meaning of TSA is...
  We've done all the terrorists' work for them. Quite brilliant really.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: The real meaning of TSA is...
  This is so very true that it is sad. The terrorist wanted to disrupt our way of life and they did that better than they could have hoped for in their wildest dreams. I mean how did we get from land of the free to land of the groped?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:09am
    
    Re: Re: The real meaning of TSA is...
    It's the slow corrosion of the black wind of despair, gaining a life of its own...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 11:55am

I don't see how the proposed solution addresses most of the issues raised.. It only even attempts to address the cost issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re:
  well lets look at it like this... make the security private... (thats step 1), so comapanies have to bid to get the job, and a list is created of what they have to do... (stop attacks)... now you have the navy send in some seals or marshalls or what ever to test the security... if the private company fails... fine them x dollars per time... and bang (to save profit) the company finds a way to secure the airport and do it with out civil rights violations (law suits are expensive)..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 12:28pm

I have to wonder too where all the Megaupload defenders are, the ones you keep posting and capitalizing ACCUSED... let they let it slide when the graphic here uses an accusation and tries to play it as a fact for damnation of the system.

You guys are pathetic sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 4:23pm
  
  Re:
  How's about they're two completely different subjects. One is an, as yet unproven, charge of copyright infringement against Megaupload and the seizure of the site.
  
  This is about a taxpayer funded public security agency that has yet to prove that it's done much of anything it was set up to do and costs an arm and several legs to keep going. Not only that but it's had 200 or more theft allegations against it and it's employees, selectively screens by all reports and can't even keep objects off aircraft that it's supposed to that the old method of metal detectors would have intercepted. All of which is on the record.
  
  I'm inclined to believe that it could be done more efficiently and for less privately rather than by this lot.
  
  Taxpayers do deserve and have a right to expect a bang for their buck not incompetence which is what TSA is being shown as being. The two are completely different.
  
  FAIL.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:16pm
  
  Re:
  You're not even making any sense now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2012 @ 10:48pm
  
  Re:
  Megaupload was accused. What proper evidence surrounding the factuality in those accusations has been kept under lock and key, and the prosecution for that case is very insistent on deleting that evidence before it can be properly examined by a neutral third party.
  
  On the other hand the information in this infographic has been publicly found and cited.
  
  Next time you want to mock others based on accusations some relevant, available evidence would be nice. Until then go pound sand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 1:53pm

Don't forget the infamous "Cupcake bomb"! (spoiler: it wasn't really a bomb, just a cupcake)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
myxzptlk, 11 Apr 2012 @ 2:04pm

Let me get this straight...
The TSA is security theater, because it is generally ineffective at stopping informed and determined terrorists.

But we can get the same result by privatizing airport security, and save $1 Billion per year, so let's privatize.

Am I the only one baffled by that conclusion?

It's about time the US looked outside its borders for security ideas that work. If we did that, we'd also discover that the current crop of scanners that has enriched Chertoff and others have been banned in other countries, due to health concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 11 Apr 2012 @ 3:09pm

Somebody Should Make And Sell T-Shirts With This
I wonder what would happen if someone showed up for a flight wearing one?

... oh wait, you can�t, because it�s licensed NC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re: Somebody Should Make And Sell T-Shirts With This
  You can if you make one or two for yourself or your family. Or give them away to friends and associates all if which is a NC use. :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Somebody Should Make And Sell T-Shirts With This
    What if they�re work associates? Say I make them and give them to employees in my commercial business, as a perk of the job? Is that still �NC�?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven, 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:26pm

Stopping Terrorists
They should focus 95% of their efforts on muslim men
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: Stopping Terrorists
  Can you please tell us what a muslim man looks like?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 2:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Stopping Terrorists
    walk into any mosque and look around
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stopping Terrorists
      Like the shoe bomber guy, who was a white convert?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stopping Terrorists
      Also, how do you tell the difference between an Egyptian Christian or an Egyptian Muslim? How do you tell the difference between an Indian Hindu and a Pakistani Muslim? What about the difference between a black African Christian, and a black African Muslim?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stopping Terrorists
        Americans don't want any men from those countries/continents visiting the Unites States. Try again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zack Karpel (profile), 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:42pm

TSA should stand for timewasting scamming assholes
seriously this disgusts me anyone who approves of this is an imbecile!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adventure Time, 11 Apr 2012 @ 9:12pm

I don't think a big threat will present it's self to air travel again. You can only blow up the twin towers once. (Too soon?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 12 Apr 2012 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  Yes, you are correct, they can only be blown up once. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2012 @ 1:16am

1. Get rid of TSA.
2. Give the funds to NASA (would triple the budget:ish)
3. Travel to Mars.
4. PROFIT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ann Rudinow Saetnan, 12 Apr 2012 @ 6:34am

One error in TSA analysis
There's one glaring error in the analysis above: Why on earth should we believe TSA would be any better if privatized? The US has privatized half of its military functions. Has Blackwater been more effective? Cheaper? Less criminally inclined? NOT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daggers, 7 May 2012 @ 9:13am

Privatize?
It makes the point that the TSA is pretty much worthless, and then ends with the argument that we should outsource the uselessness?

Most privatization arguments end up suggesting that we should pay some private company 20% less to provide 50% less service. Government agencies are not nearly as inefficient as privatization proponents like to claim. I'm moderately conservative; I'm not a big-government fan. But I'm also honest enough to acknowledge that most privatization proposals fall flat on their face with dishonesty.

Yes, the government should do less, but that doesn't mean we should be paying some private corporation to replace them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack Durish, 23 Jul 2012 @ 9:39am

Imagine
Imagine how much better air travel security would be if we simply hired El Al to run it for us.
Imagine how much money we would have saved using El Al's people to train and supervise ours.
Imagine how we could have used Homeland Security Budget rather than foreign aid money to pay for these benefits (in other words, we would have gotten real value in return instead of just giving the money away)
Imagine...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 9 Aug 2012 @ 2:50pm

Johnny Walker Blue
Travelling back from Jamaica, I purchased a high end bottle of whiskey called "Johnny Walker Blue" to give to my co-worker, which cost about $ 175. Had to get off plane on North Carolina with carry-ons only to reboard same plane 45 minutes later. As I was getting ready to get back on plane, TSA agent says everyone has to go back through security. They see the bottle and start yelling "this is over 3 ounces!" To which I said, "Well, yes, it's a bottle of whiskey." I told them the funny thing is I had just travelled on a plane ride with it and presented my duty free receipt. The TSA lady screams " I don't care! This should not be on a plane - it's over 3 ounces" and confiscated it. (I couldn't get out of line to check it since the we all had five minutes to get back on the plane.) I asked if I could pay shipping and get it sent to me to which she laughs and says "Honey, this the TSA, this ain't UPS." She said she would have to "throw it out" (yea, right). Hope they enjoyed themselves. In retrospect, I should've opened it up and poured it out and posted the video on YouTube. (Oh, and one other thing - the "TSA" of Mexico tells you to NOT take your shoes off when travelling to the USA, while the TSA in the USA obviously has just the opposite policy - hmmm, wonder who is right? Answer: neither - it doesn't matter)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]