Is the TSA a waste of money, time and even lives?

[Puppycow]

In most areas of life we usually accept some amount of risk, even the risk of death, in the name of convenience or not compromising our lifestyle. We do what we can within reason to minimize the risk but if the risk cannot be entirely eliminated with reasonable means we accept it. Flying on an airplane seems to be the exception though. In a way, the TSA is the ultimate proof that the terrorists won. We wouldn't put up with this if we weren't collectively terrorized, and still terrorized to this day.

I still think we need to be on our guard against terrorists, but maybe there's a smarter way to do it, which doesn't involve every passenger spending a half an hour or more waiting on line to take off their shoes, empty their pockets, take off their belts and all of that?

The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them

Here's the kicker:

So Homeland Security officials looking to evaluate the agency had a clever idea: They pretended to be terrorists, and tried to smuggle guns and bombs onto planes 70 different times. And 67 of those times, the Red Team succeeded. Their weapons and bombs were not confiscated, despite the TSA's lengthy screening process. That's a success rate of more than 95 percent.

 

[AdamSK]

Yes. Yes it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

 

[sunmaster14]

In most areas of life we usually accept some amount of risk, even the risk of death, in the name of convenience or not compromising our lifestyle. We do what we can within reason to minimize the risk but if the risk cannot be entirely eliminated with reasonable means we accept it. Flying on an airplane seems to be the exception though. In a way, the TSA is the ultimate proof that the terrorists won. We wouldn't put up with this if we weren't collectively terrorized, and still terrorized to this day.

Where do you get this from? If they got rid of all of the security theater, I would fly more than I do, and I suspect I am in the majority. The problem in this case is government, not terrorism.

<snip>



Here's the kicker:

So Homeland Security officials looking to evaluate the agency had a clever idea: They pretended to be terrorists, and tried to smuggle guns and bombs onto planes 70 different times.

Vox sure has a pretty low bar for what qualifies as a "clever" idea. Not running these kinds of tests routinely would qualifiy as idiocy. How else could you evaluate how conscientious or skilled a TSA screener was? By how many bottles of water they confiscate?

 

[Horatius]

In a way, the TSA is the ultimate proof that the terrorists won. We wouldn't put up with this if we weren't collectively terrorized, and still terrorized to this day.

I disagree with this assertion. I'm not at all concerned with terrorists on planes with me, but I still put up with the TSA style* nonsense because it's the only game in town if I want to fly places. Sure, I could "not put up with it" by driving everywhere, but I've only got so much vacation time, and driving everywhere puts an unacceptable limit on the extent of my travels.

But if the TSA disappeared tomorrow, I'd be overjoyed.



*I say "style" because I'm actually in Canada, and as such usually only deal with the actual TSA on return flights from the US.

 

[Puppycow]

Where do you get this from? If they got rid of all of the security theater, I would fly more than I do, and I suspect I am in the majority.

I disagree with this assertion. I'm not at all concerned with terrorists on planes with me,
(snip)
if the TSA disappeared tomorrow, I'd be overjoyed.

I'm not saying you individuals are terrorized, or me as an individual either for that matter, I'm saying the collective "we" as a society are. I remind you that we live in a democracy and if a majority of people weren't in favor of this stuff (sometimes even if they claim not to be) it wouldn't happen. How many members of congress, which are elected by the people, have proposed getting rid of the TSA or reforming it in a significant way?

And even if it isn't a majority, a vocal minority that really cares about a particular issue, and is politically active in pursuit of it, can overrule a majority that is loosely on the other side of the question but doesn't care enough about it to make it a top priority political issue.

Politicians, I suspect, are terrorized by the issue. If they vote to get rid of the TSA, and then a single terrorist attack happens, they worry that they will be blamed. "You voted to get rid of the TSA, and now look what happened!" And it's hard to make the argument in the wake of a terrorist attack that we just have to accept that these things may happen from time to time, and it's not worth going to extreme lengths to try and prevent every single one.



I originally meant to add a poll to this thread, but I messed up and hit submit before adding the poll. Here's what the options would have been:

What to do with the TSA?
1) Leave TSA basically as it it.
2) Keep TSA but change the way they operate (How?)
3) Get rid of the TSA. Go back to how it was before 9/11
4) Use some kind of private security scheme. Let the airlines and airports figure it out.
5) Other/Planet X

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm not saying you individuals are terrorized, or me as an individual either for that matter, I'm saying the collective "we" as a society are. I remind you that we live in a democracy and if a majority of people weren't in favor of this stuff (sometimes even if they claim not to be) it wouldn't happen. How many members of congress, which are elected by the people, have proposed getting rid of the TSA or reforming it in a significant way?

And even if it isn't a majority, a vocal minority that really cares about a particular issue, and is politically active in pursuit of it, can overrule a majority that is loosely on the other side of the question but doesn't care enough about it to make it a top priority political issue.

You could say this about any specific area of government dysfunction. The problem with government is that it is a self-perpetuating generator of dysfunction. You can't really blame any one example of that on the electorate, although I suppose you can blame it on that portion of the electorate who keeps voting for more and more powerful government (you know who you are). If the Democrats hadn't pushed for TSA to be a unionized government bureaucracy, we might have had a chance of extirpating it from our lives. As it is, it would take a miracle, or at the very least a Republican administration and a Republican Congress.

Politicians, I suspect, are terrorized by the issue. If they vote to get rid of the TSA, and then a single terrorist attack happens, they worry that they will be blamed. "You voted to get rid of the TSA, and now look what happened!" And it's hard to make the argument in the wake of a terrorist attack that we just have to accept that these things may happen from time to time, and it's not worth going to extreme lengths to try and prevent every single one.

I think politicians are more terrorized by the government bureaucracy in charge of airport security (as well as the private sector corporations feeding from the government trough in this area) that has now become a powerful, politically connected interest group. It simply isn't so easy to rid the body politic of these cancers.

I originally meant to add a poll to this thread, but I messed up and hit submit before adding the poll. Here's what the options would have been:

What to do with the TSA?
1) Leave TSA basically as it it.
2) Keep TSA but change the way they operate (How?)
3) Get rid of the TSA. Go back to how it was before 9/11
4) Use some kind of private security scheme. Let the airlines and airports figure it out.
5) Other/Planet X

Some combination of 3 and 4 is best. The individual airports or airlines should be responsible for their own security. Then their customers can vote with their wallets and their feet whether or not they feel the security theater is worth it or not.

 

[Belz...]

I still think we need to be on our guard against terrorists, but maybe there's a smarter way to do it, which doesn't involve every passenger spending a half an hour or more waiting on line to take off their shoes, empty their pockets, take off their belts and all of that?

Huh. Up here in Canada we only need to empty our pockets and let the cabin baggage through a machine. Once in a while, a random person is asked to go through the metal detectors.

Here's the kicker:

How did they manage to get the guns through the detectors?

 

[Shalamar]

Before 9/11, I had to arrive at least 3 hours early for a flight so as to beg and plead for an exit row seat (I'm very tall). After 9/11, when airlines started charging for everything, I found I could book (for a fee) seats with extra leg room, thus I didn't have to get to the airport as early.

However with the TSA as it is now, I'm back to arriving 3 hours early just to make sure I can get through the security line in time to make my flight. Very frustrating. I know a few airports are planning to toss the TSA aside and do their own security, so we'll see how that pans out.

I'm also rather skeptical that the TSA problems are to be solely blames on a particular political party.

 

[Horatius]

You could say this about any specific area of government dysfunction.

Yeah, this. The problem is not that we're so terrified that we won't even consider dropping the TSA, it's that we care so little about the TSA that we're not willing to put in the effort needed to make it a campaign issue.

Most people who fly only fly at most a few times a year. Those who fly more often, and as such are the most motivated to get rid of the TSA, simply aren't a large enough voting block to make it an issue. Would you really be willing to change your vote from Party A to Party B solely on this issue? Ignore everything else that's in play: gay marriage, transgender bathroom laws, taxes, welfare, Obamacare, religious liberty laws, gun control, and all that, and just vote on the basis of what they want to do with the TSA - would you do that?

Until you, and a whole lot more people, are willing to say "Yes" to that question, there's nothing motivating any party to embrace this issue, and that's got nothing to do with how "terrorized" we are.

And there are a multitude of other such issues which annoy just about everybody, but which don't annoy us enough to make into election issues. I hate telemarketers, people who change lanes improperly, people who take 9 or more items into the 8 items or fewer lanes, people who park right next to my driver's door when there are opens spots further away, and so many, many others. But I don't hate them enough to make them an issue when I'm deciding who to vote for.

 

[Maya22]

TSA has a presence at the larger political rallies. I think this has to do with the RFK assassination, and wanting to prevent further assassinations of political candidates.


Why Is the TSA at Trump Rallies?

 

[GodMark2]

Yeah, this. The problem is not that we're so terrified that we won't even consider dropping the TSA, it's that we care so little about the TSA that we're not willing to put in the effort needed to make it a campaign issue.

Most people who fly only fly at most a few times a year. Those who fly more often, and as such are the most motivated to get rid of the TSA, simply aren't a large enough voting block to make it an issue. Would you really be willing to change your vote from Party A to Party B solely on this issue? Ignore everything else that's in play: gay marriage, transgender bathroom laws, taxes, welfare, Obamacare, religious liberty laws, gun control, and all that, and just vote on the basis of what they want to do with the TSA - would you do that?

Until you, and a whole lot more people, are willing to say "Yes" to that question, there's nothing motivating any party to embrace this issue, and that's got nothing to do with how "terrorized" we are.

And there are a multitude of other such issues which annoy just about everybody, but which don't annoy us enough to make into election issues. I hate telemarketers, people who change lanes improperly, people who take 9 or more items into the 8 items or fewer lanes, people who park right next to my driver's door when there are opens spots further away, and so many, many others. But I don't hate them enough to make them an issue when I'm deciding who to vote for.

Those who fly most often take advantage of the TSA Pre-check program, and bypass all the security theater. In fact, you don't have to be pre-check yourself, you just have to be traveling with someone who is. In other words, people that it most inconveniences have asked for it to be 'gotten rid of', and it has been, for them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I thought the whole appeal of airplanes as terrorist targets was that they're a large number of people crowded closely together. Thanks to security theater we still have that happening, it's just at an earlier stage of the travel process. And since people waiting in line for security checks haven't been security checked yet, they're quite easy targets. I'm amazed there aren't a lot of attacks going on now as there's nothing stopping them and it would be easier than attacking the flights themselves.

 

[mgidm86]

In a way, the TSA is the ultimate proof that the terrorists won. We wouldn't put up with this if we weren't collectively terrorized, and still terrorized to this day.

I do agree that the terrorists "won" in a huge way on 9/11. The country hasn't been the same since. Fundamental changes were made to our society because of it. Some idiot tried to blow up his feet and we've been taking our shoes off before flight ever since. At least it wasn't a crotch bomb.

But I don't think Americans are "collectively terrified" of terrorism. I think most people fear it very little, if at all, however we realize that this may change soon.

It is the government who keeps telling us we need to be afraid. They make these policies. How would Americans not put up with it the TSA? We are putting up with it right now and we are not collectively terrified.

Fear sells. I think they like it this way. It makes it very easy to convince people to give up their privacy and other freedoms a little at a time.

 

[Horatius]

I'm amazed there aren't a lot of attacks going on now as there's nothing stopping them and it would be easier than attacking the flights themselves.

And it's exactly the lack of such attacks that convinced me that terrorists are either too few in number, or too incompetent, to actually be a threat.

If I had been the one planning 9/11, I'd have had teams all over the country prepared for follow-on attacks against every sort of target possible in the weeks and months afterwards. You think we've lost our minds now? Imagine if we'd had dozens of attacks at sporting events, shopping malls, and along highways during rush hour. Now that would have been some Grade A terror!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

And it's exactly the lack of such attacks that convinced me that terrorists are either too few in number, or too incompetent, to actually be a threat.

If I had been the one planning 9/11, I'd have had teams all over the country prepared for follow-on attacks against every sort of target possible in the weeks and months afterwards. You think we've lost our minds now? Imagine if we'd had dozens of attacks at sporting events, shopping malls, and along highways during rush hour. Now that would have been some Grade A terror!

By about 9/15 it occurred to those of us in smaller towns and cities across America that al Qaeda's patriarchal attacks against symbols of might and virility left us pretty far from the targets. I know America and Americans, and if I were given the labor and budget they were I could shut down the entire nation for months and damage the citizens' trust in public spaces forever.

I'm glad to learn the secret service is utilizing local resources in this manner. Somehow, a competent decision got made and carried out despite being federal agencies.

 

[Minoosh]

I thought the whole appeal of airplanes as terrorist targets was that they're a large number of people crowded closely together. Thanks to security theater we still have that happening, it's just at an earlier stage of the travel process. And since people waiting in line for security checks haven't been security checked yet, they're quite easy targets. I'm amazed there aren't a lot of attacks going on now as there's nothing stopping them and it would be easier than attacking the flights themselves.

This is an incredibly salient point.

However, terrorists couldn't turn a security line into a flying bomb that takes out skyscrapers. Plenty of people, but no skyscrapers.

 

[GodMark2]

I do agree that the terrorists "won" in a huge way on 9/11. The country hasn't been the same since. Fundamental changes were made to our society because of it. Some idiot tried to blow up his feet and we've been taking our shoes off before flight ever since. At least it wasn't a crotch bomb.

But I don't think Americans are "collectively terrified" of terrorism. I think most people fear it very little, if at all, however we realize that this may change soon.

It is the government who keeps telling us we need to be afraid. They make these policies. How would Americans not put up with it the TSA? We are putting up with it right now and we are not collectively terrified.

Fear sells. I think they like it this way. It makes it very easy to convince people to give up their privacy and other freedoms a little at a time.

http://www.kptv.com/story/17520055/police-naked-man-protests-tsa-at-portland-airport

 

[Bob001]

.....
How did they manage to get the guns through the detectors?

In the tests I've read about, fake weapons and bombs were packed in carry-on bags and were not detected by agents watching the x-ray screens, not carried on the body.

 

[Bob001]

I
....

What to do with the TSA?
1) Leave TSA basically as it it.
2) Keep TSA but change the way they operate (How?)
3) Get rid of the TSA. Go back to how it was before 9/11
4) Use some kind of private security scheme. Let the airlines and airports figure it out. 5) Other/Planet X

Some airports, including San Francisco and Kansas City do contract with private firms. But their procedures are pretty much prescribed by the TSA.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tsa-und...ty-lines-airports-private-security-screeners/

 

[The Don]

Some airports, including San Francisco and Kansas City do contract with private firms. But their procedures are pretty much prescribed by the TSA.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tsa-und...ty-lines-airports-private-security-screeners/

IMO it'd be a very brave private security firm that didn't follow the TSA guidelines to the letter. If anything went wrong they'd be sued into bankruptcy.